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

Erik Harris, a frequent marijuana user, purchased three pistols over a short period. Each time, he falsely stated on federal forms that he was not an unlawful user of marijuana. After losing one of the guns while intoxicated, Harris reported it stolen and bought a replacement. When the missing gun was found with a felon, Harris admitted to regular marijuana use during police questioning.The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied Harris's motion to dismiss the charges, which included three counts under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3) for possessing guns as an unlawful drug user and three counts under §922(a)(6) for lying to obtain the guns. The court concluded that §922(g)(3) was constitutional as applied to Harris, using means-end scrutiny. Harris then pleaded guilty to all counts but preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that history and tradition justify §922(g)(3)’s restrictions on those who pose a special danger of misusing firearms due to frequent drug use. However, the court found insufficient facts to determine whether the law's restrictions are constitutional as applied to Harris. The court affirmed the statute's constitutionality in general but vacated Harris's conviction under §922(g)(3) and remanded the case for further fact-finding. The court also held that §922(g)(3) is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Harris and upheld his convictions under §922(a)(6) for lying on the federal forms. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

Kevin Johnson was convicted of first-degree murder in 1986 for the killing of Lyndon "Cowboy" Morris, a drug dealer in Philadelphia. Four witnesses identified Johnson as the shooter, with three positively identifying him and one expressing doubts. Johnson claimed mistaken identity and presented an alibi, but his testimony conflicted with his alibi witnesses. The jury convicted him, and he was sentenced to life in prison. The Superior Court affirmed his conviction and sentence.Johnson sought post-conviction relief under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and presenting new evidence of witness recantations. The PCRA court denied his petition, but the Superior Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing. After the hearing, the state courts dismissed his petition, and the dismissal was affirmed. Johnson then filed a federal habeas petition, which was pending when new evidence emerged, leading to additional PCRA petitions that were ultimately dismissed as time-barred.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reviewed Johnson's federal habeas petition. Johnson and the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office attempted to settle the case by waiving procedural defenses, but the District Court rejected the procedural-default waiver. The court found that Johnson's Brady claims, based on witness recantations and arrest photos, were not material and did not warrant habeas relief. The court also rejected Johnson's ineffective assistance of counsel claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. The court held that the District Court had discretion to reject the procedural-default waiver and that Johnson failed to show cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice to overcome the default. The court also found that Johnson did not qualify for an evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) and that his remaining Brady and ineffective assistance claims lacked merit. View "Johnson v. Superintendent Mahanoy SCI" on Justia Law

In 2015, product liability cases involving the blood-pressure medication Olmesartan were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Adam Slater and his law firm, Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, LLC, represented over 200 plaintiffs, and the case settled for over $300 million. Subsequently, Anthony Martino, a plaintiff in the MDL, filed a class action in New Jersey state court against his former lawyers, alleging they received contingent fees in violation of New Jersey court rules. The case was removed to federal court and dismissed, with the dismissal affirmed on appeal.Following this, twenty-one individuals represented by the same defendants in the MDL filed a similar action in New Jersey state court, alleging breach of contract, legal malpractice, conversion, and unjust enrichment. Defendants removed the case to the District Court, citing diversity and federal-question jurisdiction. The District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, asserting ancillary enforcement jurisdiction, and granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, applying issue preclusion. The court also dismissed the parties' motions for sanctions as moot.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that ancillary enforcement jurisdiction does not confer original jurisdiction sufficient for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The court also found that the plaintiffs' state-law claims did not necessarily raise a federal issue to establish federal-question jurisdiction. The court vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case to determine if the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction. Additionally, the court vacated the order dismissing the motions for sanctions as moot, instructing the District Court to consider the merits of each motion. View "Johnson v. Mazie" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, representing a class of drivers, alleged that Progressive Specialty Insurance and Progressive Advanced Insurance systematically underestimated the actual cash value (ACV) of their totaled vehicles, thereby breaching their insurance agreements. The plaintiffs claimed that Progressive's method of calculating ACV, which included a "Projected Sold Adjustment" (PSA) to account for the fact that used cars often sell for less than their listed prices, was improper and resulted in underpayment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania certified two damages classes, finding that the plaintiffs' claims centered on the legitimacy of the PSAs and that this issue could be resolved on a class-wide basis. The court held that the plaintiffs had standing and rejected Progressive's arguments against commonality, predominance, superiority, and adequacy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the District Court had abused its discretion in certifying the classes. The Third Circuit held that proving whether Progressive undercompensated each class member was an individual issue that could not be resolved on a class-wide basis. The court emphasized that the key issue was whether each class member received less than the true ACV of their vehicle, which would require individualized inquiries. As a result, the court found that common issues did not predominate over individual ones, and the District Court's certification of the classes was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Drummond v. Progressive Specialty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Ronell Moses was driving through his Pittsburgh suburb when Officer Dustin Hess, in a marked police SUV, smelled burnt marijuana and saw that Moses's car windows were tinted very dark, both of which are illegal. The officer followed Moses to his home, where Moses parked in his driveway. The officer walked up the driveway, searched Moses's car, and found a loaded, stolen pistol. Moses, a felon on probation, was arrested and charged with possessing a gun and ammunition as a felon.The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied Moses's motion to dismiss the indictment, which challenged the constitutionality of the law under the Second Amendment. The court also denied his motion to suppress the gun, rejecting his claim that the officer had invaded his home's curtilage without a warrant. Moses then pleaded guilty conditionally, preserving his right to appeal the curtilage issue and the constitutionality of the law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the officer did not invade Moses's curtilage by walking halfway up the driveway, as the driveway was not an extension of Moses's home. The court applied a de novo standard of review to curtilage decisions, aligning with other circuits. The court also held that the officer's actions were constitutional and that Moses, as a felon on parole, could be prosecuted for possessing a gun. The court affirmed Moses's conviction. View "United States v. Moses" on Justia Law

Robert Lanoue, a Canadian citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States, pleaded guilty to submitting false claims to the government under 18 U.S.C. § 287. He operated a scuba school that was part of a government program funded by the post-9/11 GI Bill, which reimbursed him for teaching veterans. Lanoue admitted to submitting false and fraudulent claims, resulting in a loss of over $3 million to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Following his conviction, the government initiated removal proceedings, arguing that his crime was an aggravated felony involving fraud or deceit with losses exceeding $10,000.The Immigration Judge found that Lanoue's crime met the criteria for an aggravated felony and denied his request for a waiver of inadmissibility. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld this decision, leading Lanoue to petition for review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that Lanoue's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 287 categorically involved deceit, as the statute requires knowingly submitting false claims to the government. The court also found that the government had proven by clear and convincing evidence that the loss exceeded $10,000, based on Lanoue's stipulation and plea agreement indicating losses between $1.5 and $3.5 million.Lanoue's argument for a retroactive waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) was rejected. The court noted that to qualify for such a waiver, a lawful permanent resident must have been convicted or admitted to the crime at the time of reentry, which was not the case for Lanoue.The Third Circuit held that filing false claims under 18 U.S.C. § 287 is an aggravated felony involving deceit, and the government sufficiently proved the loss amount. Consequently, Lanoue is removable and ineligible for a waiver. The court denied his petition for review. View "Lanoue v. Attorney General United States of America" on Justia Law

Kelvin Rosa, a state prisoner, sought federal habeas relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial for burglarizing a check-cashing store and shooting a responding police officer. Rosa was captured after a high-speed chase, during which he and others threw burglary tools and a stolen gun out of their car. The state presented extensive prior-bad-acts evidence, including details of other burglaries Rosa allegedly committed, to link him to the gun used in the check-cashing store burglary.The state habeas court denied Rosa's claim, concluding that his counsel was effective and that any deficiencies did not prejudice him. Rosa then filed a pro se petition for federal habeas relief, raising the same ineffective-assistance claim. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted habeas relief, finding that the state habeas court had unreasonably applied the Strickland v. Washington standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the District Court. The Third Circuit held that Rosa's trial counsel was deficient for failing to object to the extensive prior-bad-acts evidence and for not requesting timely and specific limiting instructions to mitigate its prejudicial impact. The court found that the state habeas court's conclusion that counsel was effective was unreasonable, as it did not consider whether counsel should have taken further action during the trial.The Third Circuit also found that the state habeas court unreasonably concluded that Rosa was not prejudiced by his counsel's deficiencies. The court noted that the evidence against Rosa was not overwhelming, and the extensive prior-bad-acts evidence likely influenced the jury's verdict. The court affirmed the District Court's grant of habeas relief, concluding that Rosa's trial was unfair due to his counsel's ineffective assistance. View "Rosa v. Administrator East Jersey State Prison" on Justia Law

Hector David Tipan Lopez, a native of Ecuador, suffered persecution by a local gang, the Lobos, due to his efforts to encourage young drug addicts to stop using drugs after converting to Evangelical Christianity. The gang targeted him multiple times, robbing, beating, and threatening him, and he did not seek medical care or report these incidents to the police due to distrust. Fearing for his life, he entered the United States in February 2023 and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings after his arrest for domestic violence. An Immigration Judge (IJ) found him credible but denied his applications, ruling that his religion, race, and political opinions were not central reasons for his persecution. The IJ also concluded that Ecuadorian authorities would not acquiesce to his torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard by using a subordination-based test and an animus-based test for determining the nexus between Tipan Lopez's persecution and his religion. The court remanded the religious-nexus question to the BIA with instructions not to apply these tests. The court also remanded the CAT claim for the BIA to determine whether Ecuador can protect Tipan Lopez from torture, as the BIA did not make this determination. The court denied the petition for review regarding the BIA's findings on race and political opinion. View "Lopez v. Attorney General United States of America" on Justia Law

A data breach occurred at Wawa convenience stores, affecting customers' payment information. Wawa discovered the breach in December 2019 and contained it within days. The breach led to a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, consolidating 15 actions into three tracks: financial institution, employee, and consumer. The consumer track, which is the focus of this case, alleged negligence, breach of implied contract, and violations of state consumer protection laws, seeking both damages and injunctive relief.The District Court preliminarily approved a settlement that included compensation through Wawa gift cards and cash for out-of-pocket losses, as well as injunctive relief to improve Wawa's data security. Class member Theodore Frank objected, arguing that the settlement's attorney's fees were excessive and that the settlement included a clear sailing agreement and a fee reversion clause. The District Court approved the settlement and the attorney's fees, but Frank appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the fee award and remanded the case, instructing the District Court to scrutinize the reasonableness of the attorney's fees and the presence of any side agreements. On remand, the District Court found no clear sailing agreement or collusion and determined that the fee reversion was unintentional. The court reaffirmed the attorney's fee award based on the funds made available to the class, considering the benefits provided, including the injunctive relief.The Third Circuit reviewed the District Court's findings and affirmed the judgment, holding that the attorney's fee award was reasonable and that the settlement process was free of collusion or improper side agreements. The court emphasized the meaningful benefits provided to the class members and the appropriateness of the fee award based on the amount made available rather than the amount claimed. View "In re: Wawa, Inc. Data Security Litigation" on Justia Law

Miller Plastic Products Inc. fired Ronald Vincer in March 2020, during the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. Vincer had expressed concerns about the company's pandemic protocols and its operating status, believing it was not an essential business. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determined that Vincer’s termination violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because it was motivated, at least in part, by his protected concerted activity.The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Vincer’s conduct was protected under the NLRA and that his termination was motivated by his protected activity. The ALJ also disallowed testimony regarding after-acquired evidence at the liability stage of the proceeding. Miller Plastic petitioned for review of the Board’s order, and the Board cross-applied for enforcement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that Vincer’s conduct was protected under the NLRA and was a motivating factor for his termination. The court also agreed with the ALJ’s decision to disallow testimony regarding after-acquired evidence at the liability stage, noting that such evidence is typically considered during compliance proceedings.However, the court found that the NLRB failed to adequately address certain evidence related to Miller Plastic’s affirmative defense that it would have fired Vincer even absent his protected conduct. The court remanded the case to the Board to address the significance of that evidence. The court denied Miller Plastic’s petition for review in part and granted the Board’s cross-application for enforcement in part, affirming the finding that Vincer was terminated because of his concerted activity. View "Miller Plastic Products Inc v. NLRB" on Justia Law