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

In 1990, Brow was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine. The PSR determined that Brow was responsible for 492 grams of crack cocaine and 67 grams of marijuana and was subject to a maximum term of life imprisonment and a minimum term of 10 years’ imprisonment. Brow had two prior Virgin Islands convictions for third-degree assault and one for third-degree robbery. The PSR found that those convictions constituted crimes of violence. Brow, classified as a career offender, was sentenced to 30 years. In an unrelated 1994 decision, in the Northern District of Georgia, Brow was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced to 10 years, “consecutively" to sentences previously imposed.Brow moved for an unspecified reduction of his term of incarceration under the First Step Act. The district court denied the motion, concluding that, for sentencing purposes, Brow remained a career offender with his Guidelines determination unchanged, and that applying the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, no sentence reduction was appropriate. The court specifically rejected Brow’s arguments about his age and likelihood of recidivism and that his crime did not involve violence or firearms.The Third Circuit affirmed, noting Brow’s “intriguing” effort. Although the incarceration portion of his drug conviction sentence is complete, he sought First Step Act relief that would lower the incarceration period of his unrelated, consecutive sentence. View "United States v. Brow" on Justia Law

During the tax years at issue, 2010–2013, the Taxpayers owned a New Jersey horse farm. Their Company employed several employees, none of whom had a budget. The Company paid the Taxpayers' personal expenses and lost more than $3.5 million during the years at issue and more than $11.4 million between 1998-2013. The Taxpayers contributed capital and made loans to the Company. In 2016, the Company sold a horse for nearly $1.2 million, enabling it to report a modest overall profit.In 2016, the IRS sent notices of income tax deficiencies. The Tax Court sustained the deficiency determinations, holding that the Taxpayers could not deduct Company losses because their horse breeding activity was not engaged in for profit under Internal Revenue Code section 183 and that the Taxpayers failed to substantiate net operating loss carryforwards that allegedly arose from Company activity. The Third Circuit affirmed. The Tax Court did not clearly err when it found that adverse market conditions did not explain the Company’s sustained unprofitability and correctly considered the Taxpayers’ substantial income from other sources. The profit generated from the 2016 horse sale was tempered by the fact that it occurred after the tax years at issue and after the notices of deficiency. The expertise of the Taxpayers and their advisors was the only factor that favored the Taxpayers. View "Skolnick v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, owners of Samsung SmartTVs, filed a putative class action in 2017, alleging that the SmartTVs used automatic tracking software to collect personally identifying information about them, such as the videos or streaming services they watch, and transmit that data to third-parties, who allegedly used the information to display targeted advertisements. When setting up their SmartTVs, plaintiffs had to agree to Terms and Conditions to access the Internet-enabled services. On some SmartTVs, the Terms and Conditions contained an arbitration provision. In 2018, the plaintiffs disclosed the Model Numbers for the named plaintiffs' SmartTVs, which enabled Samsung to determine whether they agreed to Terms containing an arbitration clause.The district court dismissed all except for the Wiretap Act claims. In 2020, Samsung notified the court that it would move to compel individual arbitration, arguing that it did not waive its right to arbitrate because “the prerequisites of waiver— extensive discovery and prejudice—are lacking.” The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion. Samsung waived its right to arbitrate and compelling arbitration would cause the plaintiffs to suffer significant prejudice. Samsung’s actions evinced a preference for litigation over arbitration. Samsung continuously sought and agreed to stays in discovery and pursued successful motions to dismiss on the merits. It assented to all pre-trial orders and participated in numerous court conferences. View "White v. Samsung Electronics America Inc." on Justia Law

In 2005, Brasby was convicted in state court of aggravated assault, a second-degree felony, for recklessly causing serious bodily injury to another person by shooting the person four times in the back. The New Jersey statute provided: A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he . . . [a]ttempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury purposely or knowingly or under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life recklessly causes such injury.” In 2019, police arrested Brasby after they observed him selling drugs. A search incident to the arrest found suspected controlled substances and a loaded stolen handgun.Brasby, indicted for illegal possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), entered into a plea agreement. The parties did not agree on whether Brasby’s 2005 conviction was for a crime of violence. The Third Circuit had previously held that a conviction for reckless conduct is insufficient to qualify as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines’ elements clause.The Third Circuit to affirmed his 57-month sentence based on a 57-71 month Guidelines range. Without the "crime of violence" enhancement, the range would have been 30-37 months. Brasby’s aggravated assault conviction qualified as a felony conviction for a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(a) because the federal generic definition of aggravated assault—and therefore the Guidelines’ definition—includes the same mens rea of heightened recklessness as the New Jersey statute. View "United States v. Brasby" on Justia Law

Before the 2016 Democratic National Convention, the Secret Service announced that access to certain areas would be restricted. Graber, a paramedic, joined political protests outside the Restricted Area. Protestors breached the gated perimeter. The Philadelphia Police Department apprehended those within the Restricted Area. Graber was one of seven individuals taken into custody; the police did not prepare any arrest paperwork for Graber. Special Agent Boresky was charged with serving as an affiant for a criminal complaint against the arrestees. Another agent e-mailed Boresky a synopsis of the events and photographs. Boresky appeared before a Magistrate and signed an affidavit identifying Graber as having been arrested inside the Restricted Area, based upon his “personal knowledge,” “information developed during the course of this investigation,” and information 'imparted by other officers. Boresky was not present at the arrest, did not view any video evidence, and did not write the affidavit. Graber was detained overnight. Graber’s counsel provided news video clips confirming that Graber never passed through the fence. The charges against Graber were dismissed.Citing “Bivens,” in which the Supreme Court held that a cause of action existed against federal agents who violated the Fourth Amendment, Graber sued Boresky for false arrest, unlawful detention, and false charges. Denying a motion to dismiss, the district court held that a Bivens claim could be brought against Boresky. The court later dismissed Boresky’s qualified immunity summary judgment motion. The Third Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction; the Bivens ruling is not a final decision and is not appealable under the collateral order doctrine. View "Graber v. Boresky" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were held in civil contempt and sentenced to incarceration for not paying child support. They challenged Lackawanna County’s policy of conditioning incarcerated civil contemnor child support debtors’ access to regularly paid work release on first working for half of their sentences sorting through trash at its Recycling Center, in purportedly dangerous and disgusting conditions, for five dollars per day, nominally as “community service.”Because the suit followed state suits in which the plaintiffs were found to be in contempt, the Third Circuit first addressed Rooker-Feldman, issue preclusion, and changed circumstances. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Thirteenth Amendment and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law claims in full, and of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. 1589, and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(c), 1964(c) claims against the owners of the corporation that owns the recycling center. The court reversed the dismissal of the TVPA claims against the county, the Solid Waste Authority, and the corporation, the RICO claims against the corporation, the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)(c), and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act claims against the county, the Authority, and the corporation, and their unjust enrichment claims against the county, the Authority, and the corporation. View "Burrell v. Staff" on Justia Law

Direct purchasers of drywall—not including Home Depot—sued seven drywall suppliers for conspiring to fix prices. Those cases were centralized in multi-district litigation. Home Depot was a member of the putative class. Georgia-Pacific was not sued. Before class-certification or dispositive motions were filed, a settlement with defendants USG and TIN was certified. Home Depot did not opt-out. Lafarge settled. The court certified a new settlement class; Home Depot opted out. The court later certified a new settlement class with respect to the remaining defendants with terms similar to the USG/TIN settlement—preserving the right of class members to pursue claims against alleged co-conspirators other than the settling defendants. Home Depot remained in the settlement class. The court entered judgment.Home Depot then sued Lafarge. Home Depot never bought drywall from Lafarge, but argued that Lafarge was liable for the overcharges Home Depot paid its suppliers; its expert opined that the pricing behaviors of Lafarge and other suppliers, including USG, CertainTeed, and Georgia-Pacific, were indicative of a conspiracy to fix prices. The court struck the expert report, citing issue preclusion and the law of the case, noting the grant of summary judgment to CertainTeed, that Georgia-Pacific had not previously been sued, and that alleged conspirator USG settled early in the class action.The Third Circuit vacated. Issue preclusion applies only to matters which were actually litigated and decided between the parties or their privies. Home Depot was not a party (or privy) to any of the relevant events. Two of the three events to which it was “bound” were not judicial decisions. The law of the case doctrine applies only to prior decisions made in the same case. View "Home Depot USA Inc v. Lafarge North America Inc" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, employees at the Maid-Rite meatpacking plant, were exposed to COVID-19 in 2020. Maid-Rite issued masks and face shields but allegedly forced workers to work shoulder-to-shoulder. Plaintiffs sent OSHA an inspection request on May 19. Two days later, OSHA requested a response from Maid-Rite within a week, treating the inspection request as “non-formal,” so that it initially proceeded through document exchange. On May 27, Plaintiffs asserted that they continued to face an imminent danger of COVID-19; they also contacted OSHA on June 2, requesting Maid-Rite’s response and reasserting that conditions had not changed. They sent OSHA another letter on June 29th. On July 8, OSHA informed Maid-Rite that OSHA would inspect the plant the following day. OSHA acknowledged that advance notice of an inspection was not “typical,” but cited the need “to protect [OSHA’s] employees” from COVID-19. Plaintiffs claimed the notice allowed Maid-Rite to direct its employees to change their conduct and created the appearance of compliance with mitigation guidance. OSHA determined that the plant's conditions did not constitute an imminent danger and did not seek expedited relief.Plaintiffs sued under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 662(d), limited private right of action. While OSHA’s motion to dismiss was pending, OSHA concluded its standard enforcement proceedings and declined to issue a citation. The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the Act mandated the dismissal of the claim once enforcement proceedings were complete. View "Doe v. Scalia" on Justia Law

Drug makers participating in Medicare or Medicaid must offer their drugs at a discount to certain “covered entities,” which typically provide healthcare to low-income and rural individuals, 42 U.S.C. 256b, 1396r-8(a)(1), (5) (Section 340B). Initially, few covered entities had in-house pharmacies. A 1996 HHS guidance stated that covered entities could use one outside contract pharmacy each; a 2010 HHS guidance stated that covered entities could use an unlimited number of contract pharmacies. Drug makers thought that contract pharmacies were driving up duplicate discounting and diversion and adopted policies to limit any covered entity’s use of multiple contract pharmacies. A 2020 HHS Advisory Opinion declared that Section 340B required drug makers to deliver discounted drugs to an unlimited number of contract pharmacies.In 2010, Congress told HHS to establish a process for drug makers and covered entities to resolve Section 340B–related disputes. In 2016, HHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking and accepted comments on the proposed ADR Rule. HHS subsequently listed the proposed rule as withdrawn. In 2020, HHS stated that it had just “paus[ed] action on the proposed rule,” responded to the four-year-old comments. and issued a final ADR Rule.Drug companies sued. The Third Circuit held that Section 340B does not require drug makers to deliver discounted drugs to an unlimited number of contract pharmacies. HHS did not violate the APA by purporting to withdraw the proposed ADR Rule before later finalizing it. View "Sanofi Aventis US LLC v. United States Department of Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

“Old Consumer,” a wholly owned subsidiary of J&J, sold healthcare products such as Band-Aid, Tylenol, Aveeno, and Listerine, and produced Johnson’s Baby Powder for over a century. The Powder’s base was talc. Concerns that the talc contained asbestos resulted in lawsuits alleging that it has caused ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. With mounting payouts and litigation costs, Old Consumer, through a series of intercompany transactions, split into LTL, holding Old Consumer’s liabilities relating to talc litigation and a funding support agreement from LTL’s corporate parents, and “New Consumer,” holding virtually all the productive business assets previously held by Old Consumer. J&J’s goal was to isolate the talc liabilities in a new subsidiary that could file for Chapter 11 without subjecting Old Consumer’s entire operating enterprise to bankruptcy proceedings.Talc claimants moved to dismiss LTL’s subsequent bankruptcy case as not filed in good faith. The Bankruptcy Court denied those motions and extended the automatic stay of actions against LTL to hundreds of non-debtors, including J&J and New Consumer. In consolidated appeals, the Third Circuit dismissed the petition. Good intentions— such as to protect the J&J brand or comprehensively resolve litigation—do not suffice. The Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor is intended for debtors in financial distress. LTL was not. Ignoring a parent company’s safety net shielding all foreseen liability would create a legal blind spot. View "In re: LTL Management LLC" on Justia Law