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

B-R Penn Realty defaulted on a $46 million loan backed by a mortgage on its Philadelphia apartment building. U.S. Bank, the lender, sued to foreclose in federal court, invoking diversity jurisdiction. After a bench trial, the District Court ruled that Penn Realty had breached the loan agreement and entered a money judgment in U.S. Bank’s favor for $51,392,086.96. U.S. Bank then sought a foreclosure sale of the building to recover the judgment amount. Penn Realty moved twice to halt the sale, but the District Court denied both motions, and the building was sold.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania initially ruled in favor of U.S. Bank, issuing a money judgment for the amount owed by Penn Realty. Penn Realty appealed the judgment but did not obtain a stay. Subsequently, U.S. Bank renewed its foreclosure efforts, and the District Court denied Penn Realty’s emergency motion to quash the writ of execution and cancel the sale. The sale was rescheduled, and Penn Realty filed a second motion to quash, which was also denied by the District Court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the sale of the building was an execution sale governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a), not a judicial sale under 28 U.S.C. § 2001. The court determined that U.S. Bank complied with the requirements of Rule 69(a), which imports Pennsylvania law for execution sales. The court also found that service of the writ was proper under Pennsylvania law. Consequently, the Third Circuit upheld the sale and affirmed the District Court’s denial of Penn Realty’s motion to quash. View "US Bank NA v. B R Penn Realty Owner LP" on Justia Law

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and AstraZeneca AB challenged the Drug Price Negotiation Program created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which directs the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to negotiate prices for certain high-expenditure drugs. CMS issued guidance on selecting qualifying drugs for 2026, including Farxiga, manufactured by AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca sued the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the CMS Administrator, claiming the Negotiation Program violated procedural due process and that parts of CMS’s guidance violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The United States District Court for the District of Delaware ruled that AstraZeneca failed to state a due process violation and lacked standing to pursue its APA claims. The court entered judgment in favor of the government.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that AstraZeneca lacked Article III standing to challenge the CMS guidance under the APA because the company did not demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury. AstraZeneca's claims about the impact on its business decision-making and difficulty valuing Farxiga in negotiations were deemed hypothetical and conjectural.Regarding the due process claim, the court held that AstraZeneca did not have a protected property interest in selling its drugs at a market rate. The court noted that federal patent laws do not confer a right to sell at a particular price, and the Negotiation Program only sets prices for drugs reimbursed by CMS, not private market transactions. Consequently, the court affirmed the District Court’s judgment, granting summary judgment in favor of the government on both the APA and due process claims. View "AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Secretary United States Department of Health and H" on Justia Law

Patrick Barkers-Woode and Nana Mensah were involved in a conspiracy to defraud Sprint Corporation by exploiting a sales promotion that offered smartphones to new customers at no upfront cost. Conspirators in Ghana obtained personal information of unsuspecting individuals and used it to sign them up as new Sprint customers, arranging for the smartphones to be sent to vacant homes. Barkers-Woode, Mensah, and others tracked, retrieved, and delivered the smartphones to a buyer. The conspiracy was responsible for 274 orders of 833 smartphones, resulting in $357,565.92 in actual loss and $595,399.76 in intended loss. A jury convicted both defendants of mail fraud, aggravated identity theft, and conspiracy to commit these offenses.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania sentenced Barkers-Woode to 111 months’ imprisonment and Mensah to 99 months’ imprisonment. Both defendants appealed, challenging their sentences and, in Barkers-Woode’s case, the admission of certain evidence during the trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the District Court erred in applying a 14-point enhancement based on intended loss rather than actual loss, as required by the court's decision in United States v. Banks. This error affected the defendants' substantial rights, leading the court to reverse and remand for resentencing based on actual loss. The court also upheld the District Court's application of a 2-point enhancement for the number of victims, recognizing that victims of identity theft are included within the definition of "victim" under the Sentencing Guidelines.Additionally, the court affirmed the District Court's decision to admit testimony about a related fraud against Walmart, as it directly proved the conspiratorial agreement. The court also upheld the decision to require Barkers-Woode to proceed pro se after his sixth attorney withdrew, citing his extremely dilatory conduct. Finally, the court rejected Mensah's argument that sentencing enhancements should be based on facts charged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, reaffirming the precedent set in United States v. Grier. View "USA v. Barkers-Woode" on Justia Law

Chenault-Vaughan Family Partnership ("Chenault"), a royalty interest holder in a Texas mineral estate, sued Centennial Resources Operating, LLC ("Centennial"), the site operator, for wrongly withholding royalties. The Bankruptcy Court awarded summary judgment to Centennial. Chenault appealed to the District Court, where the parties consented to proceed before a Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s judgment, and Chenault appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.The Third Circuit first addressed whether the Magistrate Judge had jurisdiction to enter final judgment in the bankruptcy appeal. The court concluded that, with the consent of the parties and a referral by the district court, a magistrate judge may enter final judgment in a bankruptcy appeal. This conclusion was supported by the broad consent authority granted to magistrate judges under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the repeal of the statutory provision that previously prohibited such referrals, and the supervisory authority retained by Article III judges.On the merits, the Third Circuit reviewed the Bankruptcy Court’s summary judgment on two claims: trespass to try title and royalties under the Texas Natural Resources Code ("TNRC"). The court affirmed the summary judgment for Centennial on the trespass-to-try-title claim, finding that Centennial did not unlawfully enter the land and dispossess Chenault, as Luxe, a cotenant, had the right to extract minerals and permit Centennial to operate.However, the court vacated the summary judgment on the TNRC claim. The court found that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Centennial was obligated to pay Unit B royalties to Chenault, particularly concerning the Division Order and Centennial’s knowledge of MDC’s non-signature on the Unit B JOA. The case was remanded to the Magistrate Judge with instructions to remand to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings on the TNRC claim. View "In re: MTE Holdings LLC" on Justia Law

Libby Hilsenrath sued the Board of Education of the School District of the Chathams, claiming that the inclusion of instructional videos about Islam in her son's seventh-grade World Cultures and Geography class violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The class covered various world regions and their predominant religions, including Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam. The specific lessons on Islam included PowerPoint presentations and two YouTube videos, "Intro to Islam" and "The 5 Pillars of Islam," which Hilsenrath argued were proselytizing.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment to the Board, finding no Establishment Clause violation. The court applied the Lemon test and later, following a remand due to the Supreme Court's decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, applied a historical analysis. The District Court concluded that the curriculum did not resemble any traditional hallmarks of religious establishment, such as coercion or preferential treatment of one religion over others.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's judgment. The Third Circuit held that the curriculum did not constitute proselytization or coercion, as the videos were part of a secular educational program covering multiple religions. The court also found no evidence of favoritism towards Islam, noting that the curriculum included teachings on various world religions. The court emphasized that the curriculum did not bear any hallmarks of religious establishment and upheld the District Court's decision. View "Hilsenrath v. School District of the Chathams" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who are probationers, sued several Pennsylvania judges, probation officers, and the county warden, alleging they were detained without a finding that such detention was necessary to prevent flight or further crimes. They claimed their due process rights were violated as they were held for months without adequate preliminary hearings or credible probable-cause findings.The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied a preliminary injunction and later granted summary judgment for the defendants on both claims. The court held that the plaintiffs' novel claim for a new procedural right conflicted with Supreme Court precedent and found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the county's adherence to existing constitutional rules in initial hearings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that probationers do not have a due process right to a finding of necessity before being detained between preliminary and revocation hearings. The Supreme Court's decisions in Morrissey v. Brewer and Gagnon v. Scarpelli established that a finding of probable cause at a preliminary hearing is sufficient to warrant continued detention for a reasonable time until the revocation hearing.However, the Third Circuit found material factual disputes regarding whether the county followed due process rules, particularly concerning the adequacy of notice given to probationers before preliminary hearings. The court reversed and remanded the case in part, allowing plaintiffs to proceed with their claim that the county did not follow established due process procedures. View "Horton v. Rangos" on Justia Law

David Payo pled guilty to two bank robberies in 2017. The District Court applied a career-offender enhancement to his sentence based on three prior robbery convictions: a 2001 federal conviction, a 2008 Pennsylvania conviction, and a 2010 Pennsylvania conviction. Payo argued that the 2008 and 2010 convictions did not involve crimes of violence, but the District Court disagreed, relying on a state-court docket sheet and an argument not advanced by the Government.The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania held that Payo's 2008 conviction was under § 3701(a)(1)(ii) and his 2010 conviction under § 3701(a)(1)(iv) qualified as a crime of violence under the enumerated-offenses clause. Payo appealed, arguing that the District Court improperly relied on a non-Shepard document (the docket sheet) and advanced an argument the Government had not made.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and found that the District Court erred in relying on the state-court docket sheet, which was not a Shepard document, and in advancing an argument the Government had not made regarding the 2010 conviction. The Third Circuit vacated Payo's sentence and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the District Court to determine whether Payo's 2008 conviction was under § 3701(a)(1)(i) or (ii) using only the Shepard documents produced by the Government initially. If the conviction was under subsection (ii), the enhancement stands; otherwise, it does not. View "USA v. Payo" on Justia Law

The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) requested records from the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). PILF sought documents related to a "glitch" in the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's system that allowed ineligible persons to register to vote. The Secretary denied the request, leading PILF to file a lawsuit claiming an informational injury due to the denial of access to the records.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania initially dismissed the suit for lack of statutory notice but found that PILF had standing based on an informational injury. After PILF provided the required notice and refiled the suit, the District Court granted and denied parts of both parties' summary judgment motions, ruling that PILF was entitled to some records but not others. The District Court did not reassess PILF's standing in light of the Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion v. Ramirez.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that PILF lacked standing. The court held that PILF did not demonstrate a concrete harm or adverse effects from the denial of information, as required by TransUnion. The court emphasized that PILF's inability to study and analyze the records or produce educational materials did not constitute a concrete injury related to the NVRA's purpose of increasing voter participation. Consequently, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court's orders and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it. View "The Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

The appellants, Robin and Louie Joseph Aquilino, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in April 2020 and retained the law firm Spector Gadon Rosen & Vinci P.C. (Spector Gadon) as their counsel. They agreed to pay a flat fee of $3,500 and a $335 filing fee, which Spector Gadon disclosed to the Bankruptcy Court. However, due to the complexity of the case, Spector Gadon billed the Aquilinos for additional post-petition services, resulting in a fee agreement of $113,000, which was not disclosed to the Bankruptcy Court as required by 11 U.S.C. § 329(a) and Bankruptcy Rule 2016(b).The Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey found that Spector Gadon violated the disclosure requirements and sanctioned the firm by ordering the disgorgement of collected fees and cancellation of the remaining fee agreement. Spector Gadon appealed, and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey reversed the Bankruptcy Court's decision, concluding that Spector Gadon was entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the Bankruptcy Court had "core" jurisdiction over the fee disclosure issue under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). The Third Circuit held that the Seventh Amendment did not entitle Spector Gadon to a jury trial in the § 329(a) proceeding because the sanctions imposed were equitable in nature, designed to restore the status quo, and did not involve legal claims. The Third Circuit also found that the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions, as it considered all relevant factors, including the Debtors' misconduct.The Third Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment and reinstated the Bankruptcy Court's sanctions order. View "In re Aquilino" on Justia Law

Randal Wise was convicted of possessing child pornography, attempting to entice a minor, and attempting to transfer obscene matter to a minor. Wise used the Grindr app to contact undercover police officers posing as minors, sending explicit photos and attempting to arrange meetings for sexual activities. He was arrested while holding an iPhone that contained sexual chats and child pornography.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Wise's motion to sever the charges, and the jury convicted him on all counts. The judge sentenced him to 288 months in prison. Wise appealed, arguing that the charges should not have been joined and that the District Court should have severed them. He also raised several sentencing claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the charges were properly joined as they involved the sexual exploitation of minors. The court found no abuse of discretion in the District Court's decision to deny severance, as there was little risk of spillover prejudice, and the jury was instructed to consider each charge separately.The Third Circuit also upheld Wise's sentence. The court found that the District Court properly applied a five-level enhancement for a pattern of sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor and another five-level enhancement for repeated sex crimes against minors. The court also held that an iPhone qualifies as a computer under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(6), thus justifying the two-level enhancement for using a computer in the crime.Finally, the court declined to address Wise's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, suggesting it be raised in a collateral review. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment. View "USA v. Wise" on Justia Law