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

Purchasers of egg products accused suppliers of conspiring to reduce the supply of eggs and increase the price for egg products in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. Plaintiffs alleged that the producers conspired to reduce the population of egg-laying hens, resulting in a reduced supply of eggs and, given the inelasticity of demand, supra-competitive prices. A trade association coordinated a certification program under which participants had to increase their cage sizes and not replace hens that died. Plaintiffs alleged that the proffered animal welfare rationale was a pretext to reduce supply. The district court, citing a bar on indirect purchaser actions, concluded that the purchaser-plaintiffs lacked standing. The Third Circuit reversed. As a matter of first impression, a direct purchaser of a product that includes a price-fixed input has antitrust standing to pursue a claim against the party that sold the product to the purchaser, where the seller is a participant in the price-fixing conspiracy, but the product also includes some price-fixed input supplied by a third-party non-conspirator. The direct relationship between the purchasers and their suppliers and the fact that the suppliers are alleged price-fixing conspirators, not merely competitors of those conspirators, are key factors. Regardless of who collected the overcharge, the purchasers’ econometric analysis purports to show the “difference between the actual [supracompetitive] price and the presumed competitive price” of the egg products they purchased. This purported difference, and the purchasers’ resulting injury, was allegedly a direct and intended result of the suppliers’ conspiracy. View "In Re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation" on Justia Law

The Sauter Estate filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York against Citigroup, Banamex and Banamex U.S.A., seeking information pertaining to Sauter’s accounts. The Estate's amended complaint added Grupo as a defendant and added a claim for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act Infractions, 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968. After defendants moved to dismiss, the Estate filed a notice of voluntary withdrawal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The defendants unsuccessfully moved to vacate that notice and to dismiss with prejudice and requested sanctions under 28 U.S.C. 1927 and the court’s “inherent powers to impose sanctions as a deterrent against continued vexatious litigation." The court noted that the Federal Rules provide safeguards in case the plaintiff commences a second action, including ordering plaintiff to pay all of defendants’ costs and fees in the dismissed action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B)(d). The Estate subsequently filed a complaint in the Delaware District Court, naming only Citigroup. Citigroup moved for costs, including attorneys’ fees, under Rule 41(d). The district court granted the motion for costs but concluded that because the plain language of Rule 41(d) does not provide for an award of attorneys’ fees. The Third Circuit affirmed. Attorneys’ fees may only be awarded as “costs” under Rule 41(d) when the substantive statute under which the lawsuit was filed defines costs to include attorneys’ fees; no such statute is involved here. View "Garza v. Citigroup Inc" on Justia Law

St. Peter’s, a non-profit healthcare entity, runs a hospital, employing over 2,800 people, with ties to a New Jersey Roman Catholic Diocese. The Bishop appoints most Board of Governors members and retains veto authority over Board actions. The hospital has daily Mass and Catholic devotional pictures throughout the building. In 1974, St. Peter’s established a non-contributory defined benefit retirement plan; operated the plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); and represented that it was complying with ERISA. In 2006 St. Peter’s sought a church plan exemption from ERISA, 26 U.S.C. 414(e); 29 U.S.C. 1002(33), continuing to pay ERISA-mandated insurance premiums while the application was pending. In 2013, Kaplan, who worked for St. Peter’s until 1999, filed a putative class action alleging that St. Peter’s did not provide ERISA-compliant summary plan descriptions or pension benefits statements, and that, as of 2011, the plan was underfunded by $70 million. While the lawsuit was pending, St. Peter’s received an IRS private letter ruling. affirming the plan’s status as an exempt church plan. The Third Circuit initially affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss, concluding that St. Peter’s was not a church. The court reversed, following a June 5, 2017, order by the Supreme Court of the United States. View "Kaplan v. Saint Peter's Healthcare System" on Justia Law

St. Peter’s, a non-profit healthcare entity, runs a hospital, employing over 2,800 people, with ties to a New Jersey Roman Catholic Diocese. The Bishop appoints most Board of Governors members and retains veto authority over Board actions. The hospital has daily Mass and Catholic devotional pictures throughout the building. In 1974, St. Peter’s established a non-contributory defined benefit retirement plan; operated the plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); and represented that it was complying with ERISA. In 2006 St. Peter’s sought a church plan exemption from ERISA, 26 U.S.C. 414(e); 29 U.S.C. 1002(33), continuing to pay ERISA-mandated insurance premiums while the application was pending. In 2013, Kaplan, who worked for St. Peter’s until 1999, filed a putative class action alleging that St. Peter’s did not provide ERISA-compliant summary plan descriptions or pension benefits statements, and that, as of 2011, the plan was underfunded by $70 million. While the lawsuit was pending, St. Peter’s received an IRS private letter ruling. affirming the plan’s status as an exempt church plan. The Third Circuit initially affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss, concluding that St. Peter’s was not a church. The court reversed, following a June 5, 2017, order by the Supreme Court of the United States. View "Kaplan v. Saint Peter's Healthcare System" on Justia Law

Migliaro purchased a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) under the National Flood Insurance Program, 42 U.S.C. 4011(a), from Fidelity for his property, which sustained flood damage in October 2012's Hurricane Sandy. Fidelity’s adjuster recommended a payment of $90,499.11, which Fidelity paid. Five months later, Migliaro submitted a proof of loss, claiming an additional $236,702.57. On July 15, 2013, Fidelity sent Migliaro a letter titled “Rejection of Proof of Loss,” stating: This is not a denial of your claim. Your field adjuster provided you with an estimate and Proof of Loss regarding covered damages. If there are additional covered damages identified, please forward documentation and they will be considered. Migliaro did not provide additional documentation or submit a second proof of loss but filed suit. Migliaro's July 2015 complaint was dismissed as untimely. Because SFIP claims are ultimately paid by the government, SFIPs are identical and state: You may not sue ... unless you have complied with all the requirements of the policy. If you do sue, you must start the suit within one year after the date of the written denial of all or part of the claim. The Third Circuit affirmed. Although the rejection of a proof of loss is not per se a denial of the claim, it does constitute a denial if the policyholder treats it as such by filing suit against the carrier. View "Migliaro v. Fidelity National Indemnity Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Bradley was Director of Budget and Financial Planning at the West Chester University of Pennsylvania (WCU). During preparation of a budget report for the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, Bradley was instructed to increase a line item by several million dollars, to “swing” a multi-million dollar surplus to a multi-million dollar deficit. She was told that the report “was a political document[,] and if you don’t present this deficit, your appropriation money is at risk.” At a meeting of WCU’s Budget Committee, Bradley stated that alterations were “unethical and quite frankly, [possibly] illegal.” Her supervisor expressed his displeasure, stating that her “future was at risk.” Bradley subsequently circulated a memorandum documenting her concerns. Two years later, Bradley was assisting with a meeting of WCU’s Enrollment Committee. She presented her supervisor’s proposed budget, then answered a question and presented an alternate budget, which, she believed, “presents reality.” Although she was expected to speak at a presentation the next day, Bradley refused to do so unless she could present her version of the budget. Her supervisor told Bradley that her contract would not be renewed. Arguing that her termination was in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment, she sued. The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal. The institutional defendants were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; her speech was pursuant to her official duties, and, therefore not constitutionally protected. View "Bradley v. West Chester University of Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

Bradley was Director of Budget and Financial Planning at the West Chester University of Pennsylvania (WCU). During preparation of a budget report for the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, Bradley was instructed to increase a line item by several million dollars, to “swing” a multi-million dollar surplus to a multi-million dollar deficit. She was told that the report “was a political document[,] and if you don’t present this deficit, your appropriation money is at risk.” At a meeting of WCU’s Budget Committee, Bradley stated that alterations were “unethical and quite frankly, [possibly] illegal.” Her supervisor expressed his displeasure, stating that her “future was at risk.” Bradley subsequently circulated a memorandum documenting her concerns. Two years later, Bradley was assisting with a meeting of WCU’s Enrollment Committee. She presented her supervisor’s proposed budget, then answered a question and presented an alternate budget, which, she believed, “presents reality.” Although she was expected to speak at a presentation the next day, Bradley refused to do so unless she could present her version of the budget. Her supervisor told Bradley that her contract would not be renewed. Arguing that her termination was in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment, she sued. The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal. The institutional defendants were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; her speech was pursuant to her official duties, and, therefore not constitutionally protected. View "Bradley v. West Chester University of Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

Williams, a citizen of Guyana and a lawful U.S. permanent resident, immigrated to this country in 1970, when he was 13 months old. He has no family in Guyana; his relatives are all U.S. citizens. In 2006, he pleaded guilty to five counts of first-degree forgery under Georgia Code 16-9-1(a). Williams was charged as removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The IJ denied relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, rejecting an argument that the Georgia forgery statute is broader than generic forgery because it criminalizes the use of a fictitious name when signing a document and because the statute does not require a showing of prejudice. The BIA later denied a motion for reconsideration under the Supreme Court’s 2016 "Mathis" decision, arguing that Georgia’s forgery statute is indivisible under Mathis and is overbroad in criminalizing some conduct that does not relate to forgery--false agency endorsements. The Third Circuit denied relief. Employing a “looser categorical approach,” the court considered the “logical connection” between the federal offense the state law and concluded that concerns about the inauthenticity or unauthorized nature of a written instrument establish a logical relationship between common law forgery and false agency endorsement. The intent elements are “directly analogous” and target the “same core criminal conduct.” View "Williams v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

Accredo delivers clotting medication and provides nursing assistance for hemophilia patients. Accredo makes donations to charities concerned with hemophilia, including HSI and HANJ, which allegedly recommended Accredo as an approved provider for hemophilia patients. Greenfield, a former Accredo area vice president, sued, alleging violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b), and the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)(A)-(B). If Greenfield prevailed, he would get at least 25% of any civil penalty or damages award. The government did not intervene. The district court, following discovery, granted Accredo summary judgment, finding that Greenfield failed to provide evidence of even a single federal claim for reimbursement that was linked to the alleged kickback scheme. The Third Circuit affirmed. The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits kickbacks regardless of their effect on patients’ medical decisions. Because any kickback violation is not eligible for reimbursement, to certify otherwise violates the False Claims Act but there must be some connection between a kickback and the reimbursement claim. It is not enough to show temporal proximity. Greenfield was required to show that at least one of the 24 federally-insured patients for whom Accredo provided services and submitted reimbursement claims was exposed to a referral or recommendation by HSI/HANJ in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. View "Greenfield v. Medco Health Solutions Inc" on Justia Law

Wilson pled guilty to three counts of unarmed bank robbery or attempted bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. 2113(a). The district court imposed enhancements for being a career offender, U.S.S.G. 4B1.2, and for making a death threat, U.S.S.G. 2B3.1(b)(2)(F). In one of two completed robberies, Wilson had passed the bank teller a note, stating “this is a hold up, empty your drawers now, or else.” The presentence report suggested that section 2113(a) be treated as a “crime of violence” under the guidelines, and, because Wilson had two prior convictions under that same statute, that he be classified as a “career offender.” The threat-of-death enhancement did not increase the total offense level beyond that mandated by the career-offender enhancement. Wilson did not object to the threat-of-death enhancement, but did object to being treated as a “career offender.” The district court overruled that objection and sentenced him to 151 months in prison, at the bottom of the guidelines range calculated in the PSR. The Third Circuit affirmed, joining other Circuits in holding that bank robbery by intimidation counts as a crime of violence. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law