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

Bayada employees are paid extra for exceeding their weekly productivity minimums. If they fail to meet those minimums, Bayada withdraws from their available accumulated paid time off (PTO) to supplement the difference between the points they were expected to earn and what they actually earned. Bayada does not deduct from an employee’s guaranteed base salary when the employee lacks sufficient PTO to cover a productivity point deficit. The plaintiffs filed a collective action and putative class action alleging that the deductions effectively reduced their salary and violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201, and state employment laws; they claimed that PTO qualified as salary under the FLSA and its related regulations.The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Bayada. As a matter of first impression, the court held based on the plain meaning of the regulatory language promulgated under the FLSA, that PTO is not part of an employee’s salary. The FLSA prohibits an actual, improper deduction from an employee’s salary. Bayada did not reduce the guaranteed base pay of any of the plaintiffs. View "Higgins v. Bayada Home Health Care Inc" on Justia Law

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission conditionally approved Adelphia’s application under 15 U.S.C. 717f(c), the Natural Gas Act, to acquire, construct, and operate an interstate natural gas pipeline system. As part of that project, Adelphia sought to construct a compressor station in West Rockhill Township and applied to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to demonstrate compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act and Pennsylvania’s Air Pollution Control Act. The DEP granted Plan Approval.Adelphia successfully moved to dismiss appeals to the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board, arguing that federal courts of appeals have original and exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to environmental permits issued by the DEP. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reversed, reasoning that administrative proceedings are not “civil actions” and that the Natural Gas Act did not preempt the Board from exercising its jurisdiction. Adelphia then filed suit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania requesting that it enjoin the Board from acting. Adelphia also appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.The district court dismissed Adelphia’s suit, holding that the issue preclusion doctrine bars Adelphia from bringing a federal action premised on arguments the Commonwealth Court rejected. The Third Circuit affirmed. Adelphia’s challenge impermissibly seeks to relitigate an issue decided by the Commonwealth Court. View "Adelphia Gateway LLC v. Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board" on Justia Law

In 2013, three armed men in ski masks entered a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Cracker Barrel restaurant, robbed the victims at gunpoint, and stashed $8,000 in a bag. A victim hiding in the bathroom called 911. The robbers fled but were arrested nearby. Police discovered a loaded handgun approximately 10 feet from where Stoney was found. The cash and two other guns were also recovered.Stoney admitted his involvement and identified his co-defendants. Stoney was charged with Hobbs Act robbery and the Use of a Firearm During a Crime of Violence, 18 U.S.C. 2; 1951; 924(c)(1)(A). The firearm charge referenced the Hobbs Act robbery as the predicate offense, based on two theories of liability: Pinkerton and aiding and abetting. The indictment did not specify a completed Hobbs Act robbery but Stoney pled guilty, admitting to a completed gunpoint robbery.The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of Stoney’s successive motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255, rejecting arguments that his conviction should be treated as an attempted Hobbs Act robbery, which fails to qualify as a 924(c)(3)(A) predicate crime of violence or that his conviction, based on Pinkerton liability and aiding and abetting, does not qualify as a crime of violence. There is no question that Stoney personally committed a completed Hobbs Act robbery View "United States v. Stoney" on Justia Law

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