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

Delaware’s Unclaimed Property Law (UPL), Del. Code tit. 12 section 1101, allows the state to escheat certain types of unclaimed property held by businesses chartered in the state, if the particular business holding the property is not the owner of it, and if there has been no contact with the owner for a specified period of time. Delaware initiated an audit of Siemens, which is incorporated under Delaware law. After a near-decade-long audit process, Siemens sued the state, challenging the constitutionality of the audit and arguing that Delaware’s actions conflict with federal common law limiting the scope of any state’s escheatment authority.The district court dismissed most of Siemens’s claims and denied its motion for a preliminary injunction on the sole surviving claim, which alleged a violation of procedural due process. The Third Circuit vacated. The district court erred in concluding that Siemens failed to show irreparable harm based on its procedural due process claim, and in dismissing Siemens’s federal preemption claim as unripe. In considering the audit, the district court paid insufficient heed to a holder’s payment obligations with respect to interest and penalties under the statute and the consequences of not meeting those obligations. The court affirmed the dismissal of Siemens’s expedited-audit procedural due process claim. View "Siemens USA Holdings Inc. v. Geisenberger" on Justia Law

Argueta, a 20-year-old citizen of Honduras, entered the U.S. in 1998. In 2007, Argueta had an altercation with a former employer over the late payment of wages. Convicted of aggravated assault, he was sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment. In removal proceedings, he sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Argueta has been in ICE custody since December 2014 and has been transferred at least 15 times. His removal proceedings remain pending, Argueta unsuccessfully requested bond.In 2019, Argueta sought habeas corpus relief, 28 U.S.C. 2241. The district court denied Argueta’s petition without prejudice, reasoning that the statutory scheme under which Argueta was detained rendered him ineligible for immediate release. In April 2020, Argueta, who by then had been transferred to a detention facility outside of New Jersey, moved to reopen. The district court denied Argueta’s motion, finding that the motion raised new claims and constituted a new habeas petition over which it lacked jurisdiction because of ICE’s transfer of Argueta.The Third Circuit reversed. In referring to Covid-19 and to a change in the governing statutory scheme, Argueta did not raise new claims; his motion is a Rule 60(b)(6) motion. After a district court acquires jurisdiction over an ICE detainee’s section 2241 petition for relief from continued detention, the transfer of the detainee outside of the court’s territorial jurisdiction does not strip that court of jurisdiction to entertain a Rule 60(b) motion. View "Anariba v. Director Hudson County Correctional Center" on Justia Law

In August 2019, Sheppard began serving a three-year term of supervised release in connection with a 2016 guilty plea for mail fraud. During the first year of his supervision, Sheppard learned that his girlfriend and his assigned probation officer were engaged in an alleged “personal relationship” that included texting and telephone conversations concerning the probation officer’s romantic relationship. Sheppard moved for early termination of his term of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(1). The Third Circuit affirmed the summary denial of the motion. The district court was not required to cite the specific 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors; it sufficiently indicated that it considered the relevant factors. The court did not fail to consider the effect of the probation officer’s alleged misconduct but focused the majority of its decision on addressing Sheppard’s rehabilitation argument. It found that Sheppard “offer[ed] no persuasive explanation for why the purported misconduct of his former probation officer makes him less amenable to, or needful of, such assistance.” View "United States v. Sheppard" on Justia Law

Since his 2012 federal conviction, Garrett has brought at least 10 federal civil suits. In this suit, Garrett sued New Jersey's Governor and another official under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging due process and “speedy trial” violations. The district court granted Garrett in forma pauperis status. The court screened Garrett’s complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii), concluded that Garrett’s due process claim “is a string of nonsequiturs" with no facts to support any claim, and dismissed Garrett’s speedy trial claim as properly raised only in a habeas action. The Third Circuit advised Garrett to seek a final judgment to perfect his right to appeal. The district court obliged, dismissing Garrett’s complaint “with prejudice.” Garrett never filed a new or amended notice of appeal in the district court, and a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days “after the entry” of judgment, 28 U.S.C. 2107(a).The Third Circuit then denied Garrett’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis; he must pay filing fees under the three-strikes rule. 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). A suit dismissed under “Heck” is dismissed for failure to state a claim and counts as a strike. In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a prisoner lacks a section 1983 “cause of action” if the prisoner is challenging an “allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment” before having the conviction or sentence overturned. Garrett has not shown imminent danger or serious physical injury. View "Garrett v. Murphy" on Justia Law

Dr. Polansky was an official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) before consulting for EHR, a “physician advisor” company that provides review and billing certification services to hospitals and physicians that bill Medicare. Polansky became concerned that EHR was systematically enabling its client hospitals to over-admit patients by certifying inpatient services that should have been provided on an outpatient basis.In 2012, Polansky filed suit under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729, alleging EHR was causing hospitals to bill the government for inpatient stays that were not “reasonable and necessary” for diagnosis or treatment as required by the Medicare program, 42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)(1)(A). His complaint remained under seal for two years while the government conducted its own investigation and ultimately determined it would not participate in the case.In 2019, the government notified the parties that it intended to dismiss the entire action under 31 U.S.C. 3730(c): “[t]he Government may dismiss the action notwithstanding the objections of the [relator]” so long as the relator receives notice and an opportunity to be heard on the Government’s motion. The district court eventually granted the motion. The Third Circuit affirmed. The government is required to intervene before moving to dismiss and its motion must meet the standard of FRCP 41(a). The district court acted within its discretion in granting the government’s motion. View "Polansky v. Executive Health Resources Inc" on Justia Law

Arreaga-Bravo, a 31-year-old from Guatemala. arrived in the U.S. in 2016. In removal proceedings, she sought withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming that she had fled Guatemala to escape harassment and sexual violence by the Mara 18 gang. She discussed the rape of her 15-year-old sister, which was not reported to the police because the nearest police station was four hours away; after the family moved, another sister was raped but the police never investigated. The family moved again. Arreaga-Bravo’s friend was raped by multiple men; in 2016, Arreaga-Bravo was targeted by gang members to enlist as a gang girlfriend. Arreaga-Bravo refused and began to receive threats. Eventually, two men grabbed her on the street, pulled out a knife, and threatened to kill her unless she surrendered to the gang.The IJ granted Arreaga-Bravo CAT relief, finding that Arreaga-Bravo was generally credible, candid, and forthcoming, that it is more likely than not that Arreaga-Bravo will be harmed if she returns to Guatemala, and that the Guatemalan government would acquiesce in Arreaga-Bravo’s tortureThe BIA reversed, finding that it was not “sufficiently persuade[d]” that Arreaga-Bravo faces a particularized risk of torture and that it was “unable to agree” with the IJ’s conclusions. The Third Circuit vacated. Rather than defer to the IJ’s factual findings and review for clear error, the BIA inserted itself into the fact-finder role and disagreed with the IJ’s weighing of the evidence. View "Bravo v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

In 2014, Claude, convicted of bank fraud, access device fraud, aggravated identity theft, and currency offenses, was sentenced to 232 months’ imprisonment. In 2020, Claude sought compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), citing “extraordinary and compelling circumstances” arising from his purported “substantial assistance to the D.E.A. of New Jersey.” Claude alleged that, four years earlier, he provided crucial assistance, which allowed the government to “bust[] someone with multiple kilos of cocaine” and “locat[e] a cell phone that was part of a child pornography indictment.” The government filed a Rule 35(b) motion on behalf of another prisoner who, Claude insists, “reap[ed] the benefits” of his efforts, resulting in a “gross disparity” between his sentence and that of the undeserving cooperator. The government asserted that his purported assistance was neither substantial nor welcomed.The district court denied Claude’s motion, stating that a reduction of sentence for post-sentencing cooperation requires a Rule 35 motion from the government’ and cannot be raised by a defendant through a section 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. While the First Step Act made substantial changes to the procedures applicable to compassionate release motiongs based on extraordinary and compelling reasons, Congress made no changes to Rule 35, which governs sentence reductions based on substantial assistance. The Third Circuit affirmed. Substantial assistance is not itself an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting compassionate release under section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). View "United States v. Claude" on Justia Law

Quinnones pleaded guilty to two counts of armed bank robbery and stipulated that her commission of an armed robbery of a store should be treated at sentencing as if it were a third conviction. The PSR recommended that she be sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1, classifying her conviction for armed bank robbery and her four prior convictions for assault by a prisoner under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 2703 as “crimes of violence.” Quinnones objected, arguing that three of her 2703 convictions did not qualify as crimes of violence. The district court applied the career offender designation, departed downward from the Guidelines range of 188-235 months, and sentenced Quinnones to 132 months’ imprisonment.The Third Circuit vacated. Assault by a prisoner under the portion of section 2703 that criminalizes “caus[ing] another to come into contact with [bodily] fluid” when the prisoner knew or should have known the fluid came from someone with a communicable disease is not a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1. The least culpable conduct for which a defendant can be convicted under the statute is spitting or expelling fluid when the person should have known the fluid was infected; such conduct does not include “physical force” for purposes of the Guidelines. A defendant can be convicted of 2703’s bodily fluids felony with only a negligent state of mind as to whether the fluid originated from an infected person. View "United States v. Quinnones" on Justia Law

The estates of New Jersey nursing home residents, who died from COVID-19, alleged that the nursing homes acted negligently in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. The nursing homes removed the case to federal court. The district court dismissed the cases for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.The Third Circuit affirmed rejecting three arguments for federal jurisdiction: federal-officer removal, complete preemption of state law, and the presence of a substantial federal issue. The 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d, 247d6e, which protects certain individuals—such as pharmacies and drug manufacturers—from lawsuits during a public-health emergency, was invoked in March 2020 but does not apply because the nursing homes did not assist or help carry out the duties of a federal superior. The PREP Act creates an exclusive cause of action for willful misconduct but the estates allege only negligence, not willful misconduct; those claims do not fall within the scope of the exclusive federal cause of action and are not preempted. The PREP Act’s compensation fund is not an exclusive federal cause of action. The estates would properly plead their state-law negligence claims without mentioning the PREP Act, so the PREP Act is not “an essential element" of the state law claim. View "Estate of Joseph Maglioli v. Alliance HC Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2019, Mallet learned that Bundy was its newest competitor in the sale of baking release agents, the lubricants that allow baked goods to readily separate from the containers in which they are made. Bundy was well-known for other commercial baking products when it launched a new subsidiary, Synova, to sell baking release agents. Synova hired two Mallet employees, both of whom had substantial access to Mallet’s proprietary information. That information from Mallet helped Synova rapidly develop, market, and sell release agents to Mallet’s customers.Mallet sued, asserting the misappropriation of its trade secrets. The district court issued a preliminary injunction. restraining Bundy, Synova, and those employees from competing with Mallet. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded for further consideration of what, if any, equitable relief is warranted and what sum Mallet should be required to post in a bond as “security … proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” A preliminary injunction predicated on trade secret misappropriation must adequately identify the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets. If the district court decides that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted, the injunction must be sufficiently specific in its terms and narrowly tailored in its scope. View "Mallet & Co., Inc. v. Lacayo" on Justia Law