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

Westinghouse filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In June 2017, the Bankruptcy Court set a “General Bar Date” of September 1, 2017—the deadline by which creditors had to file proofs of claims for most prepetition claims. The Bankruptcy Court confirmed a Reorganization Plan on March 28, 2018, 11 U.S.C. 1129. The effectiveness of the confirmed Plan was delayed to August 1, 2018, pending the closing of a transaction that required approval from government agencies. Westinghouse gave notice that, under the confirmed Plan, August 31, 2018, was the deadline for filing administrative expense claims.In May 2018, Westinghouse terminated Ellis’s employment, explaining that his department was being restructured. Ellis, age 67, believed he was unlawfully fired due to his age. He filed an EEOC charge in July 2018. The discrimination claim “arose” when he was terminated, so it is a claim after confirmation of the Plan but before its Effective Date. Ellis never took any action in the Bankruptcy Court. In October 2018, Ellis filed suit against Westinghouse, which moved for summary judgment, arguing that Ellis’s claim, as an administrative expense claim not timely filed by the Administrative Claims Bar Date, was discharged. The Third Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of Ellis. As a matter of first impression, the court reasoned that the holder of a post-confirmation administrative expense claim cannot choose to bypass the bankruptcy process, so if the claim is not timely filed by the bar date, it faces discharge like a preconfirmation claim. View "Ellis v. Westinghouse Electric Co LLC" on Justia Law

The Union represents about 165 employees at the Clinton research facility, staffed by EMRE. In 2015, a bargaining unit member retired. After advertising internally failed to fill the open position, EMRE used independent contractors to staff the position. The Union filed a grievance regarding the propriety of EMRE contracting out bargaining unit positions and attempting to permanently fill bargaining unit positions with contractors. The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) allows the Company to “let independent contracts” as long as: during any period of time when an independent contractor is performing work of a type customarily performed by employees and employees qualified to perform such work together with all of the equipment necessary in the performance of such work are available in the Company facilities, the Company may not because of lack of work demote or lay off any employee(s) qualified to perform the contracted work."Arbitrator Klein found that the CBA “expressly limits contracting to a ‘period of time” and that EMRE pursued a plan to replace employees with contractors as they left EMRE. She concluded that EMRE’s actions undermined the composition and breadth of the bargaining unit. The Third Circuit affirmed the arbitration award preventing EMRE from permanently contracting out bargaining unit positions at the Clinton facility. Rejecting an argument that the arbitrator improperly considered extrinsic evidence contrary to the CBA, the court noted that the standard of review for upholding arbitration awards is highly deferential. The award “withstands the minimal level of scrutiny.” View "Independent Laboratory Employees' Union, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Co." on Justia Law

Rought sold fentanyl to Carichner, who provided some to Giberson. Both overdosed. Giberson was revived with Narcan; Carichner died. Rought was indicted for possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute resulting in death and serious bodily injury. Days later, he was interrogated by the FBI. After being advised of his rights verbally and in writing, he answered questions about his drug use and his supplier but said he did not want to talk about Carichner’s death without a lawyer. The interrogating agents respected his wishes and turned the questioning to other subjects. In discussing those other subjects, however, Rought quickly brought the conversation back around to Carichner and made incriminating statements.The district court denied Rought’s motion to suppress the statements. A jury convicted him. The Third Circuit affirmed. Invocations of the right to counsel during custodial interrogations can be “limited.” After a limited invocation, interrogation can continue on topics not covered by the invocation. If the suspect, without prompting from law enforcement, then voluntarily reinitiates discussion of a covered topic and waives her previously invoked rights, it “is quite consistent with the Fifth Amendment” for the suspect’s statements about a covered topic to be admissible at trial. View "United States v. Rought" on Justia Law

In 2003, Golden sought to construct a hotel and casino. Golden’s proposed development, located within St. Croix’s coastal zone, required a major Coastal Zone Management (CZM) permit. The CZM Committee held the statutorily required public hearing on January 8, 2004. VICS, an environmental group, appeared and submitted comments. On January 20, Golden wrote a formal request for an extension to respond to comments. The Committee construed the letter as “waiv[ing] [Golden’s] right to a decision" within 30 days. By the time Golden replied, disputing that position, that statutory period had elapsed. The Committee had difficulty meeting its quorum requirements and held the decisional meeting in May, concluding that its failure to act before the deadline meant that it had granted Golden a default permit. The Committee later rescinded the default permit but the Board of Land Use Appeals issued the permit.VICS filed a petition with the Superior Court, which affirmed the Board’s decision. In 2020, the Appellate Division affirmed the Superior Court’s 2006 decision that affirmed the Board’s grant of a default permit, without reaching the merits of VICS’s petition.The Third Circuit remanded an appeal. A party appealing from the decision of a territorial court must establish Article III standing when invoking federal circuit court jurisdiction, even though Article III standing is not required before the territorial courts. The record was insufficient to determine whether VICS has Article III standing; the Superior Court must supplement the record. View "Virgin Islands Conservation Society, Inc. v. Virgin Islands Board of Land Use Appeals" on Justia Law

H.K., a fifth-grader who has been diagnosed with ADHD, oppositional tendencies, and developmental delays, lives within the East Brunswick school district. H.K. was previously enrolled at Hatikvah, a local educational agency. Both East Brunswick and Hatikvah are funded by taxpayers, East Brunswick’s annual budget is approximately 25 times greater than Hatikvah’s budget. Hatikvah proposed an individualized education program (IEP) under which H.K. would attend Bridge, a private school. H.K.’s parents instead unilaterally enrolled H.K. in a different private school, Laurel, then filed a due process petition under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), seeking reimbursement for H.K.’s costs of attendance at Laurel. In administrative proceedings, Hatikvah agreed to implement a new IEP that kept H.K. at Laurel. East Brunswick did not participate in that proceeding but subsequently filed a separate petition with the New Jersey Department of Education, challenging H.K.’s placement at Laurel and arguing that East Brunswick could provide H.K. with a free, appropriate public education in a less restrictive environment. H.K.’s parents sought to compel East Brunswick to pay for H.K.’s costs of attending Laurel while that petition was litigated. Laurel is H.K.’s IDEA "pendent placement."The Third Circuit ruled in favor of Hatikvah. Financial responsibility for all pendent placement costs rests entirely with the resident school district under the stay-put rule, 20 U.S.C. 1415(j)m noting that East Brunswick was challenging H.K.’s placement at Laurel. View "Hatikvah International Academy Charter School v. East Brunswick Township Board of Education" on Justia Law

The three restaurants in these consolidated appeals each brought its own action in state court seeking a declaration that its respective Insurer was obligated to provide coverage for COVID-19-related losses under an insurance policy. Each Insurer removed its case to federal court invoking diversity jurisdiction; each district court exercised its discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA), 28 U.S.C. 2201–02, to abstain from hearing the case and ordered the matter be remanded to state court. The Third Circuit vacated the orders, concluding that the District Courts erred in weighing factors relevant to the exercise of discretion under the DJA: the likelihood that a federal court declaration will resolve the uncertainty of obligation which gave rise to the controversy, the general policy of restraint when the same issues are pending in a state court, and the public interest in settlement of the uncertainty of obligation. In this case, a declaratory judgment would be sufficient to afford relief and settle their respective controversies. View "Dianoias Eatery LLC v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Co" on Justia Law

Before filing for bankruptcy, the Debtors provided general contracting services for large construction projects, including many projects for departments of the federal government. To enter into contracts with the United States, contractors are generally required to post both a performance bond and a payment bond signed by the contractor and a qualified surety (such as ICSP), 40 U.S.C. 3131. When the Debtors defaulted on the contract at issue, ICSP stepped in to make sure that the work was completed. ICSP claims that it is subrogated to the United States’ rights to set off a tax refund (owed to one or more of the Debtors) against the losses that ICSP covered. However, to settle various claims in the Debtors’ Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings, the United States and the Trustee agreed that the United States would waive its setoff rights.The Bankruptcy Court, district court, and Third Circuit held that ICSP is not entitled to the tax refund. The United States had not yet been “paid in full,” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. 509(c), when the Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement, so ICSP’s subrogation rights were subordinate to the remaining and superior claims of the United States at the time of the settlement. The United States was entitled to waive its setoff rights in order to settle its remaining and superior claims; the waiver of its setoff rights extinguished ICSP’s ability to be subrogated to those rights. View "Insurance Co of the State of Pennsylania v. Giuliano" on Justia Law

For many years, a 265-acre tract in Robinson Township, Pennsylvania hosted a gun range with over 800 members. In 2008, the range’s then-owner pleaded guilty to possessing weapons as a convicted felon, and the Club closed for about a decade. In 2017, Drummond leased the property for the retail sale of firearms and a shooting range. The Township then permitted "Shooting Ranges" in Industrial and Special Conservation zoning districts; Interchange Business Districts (IBD) could host “Sportsman’s Clubs.” Residents complained that renewed “use of high power rifles” at the Club would pose a “nuisance” and a “danger.” The Board amended the IBD rules, covering Drummond's property, limiting Clubs to “pistol range, skeet shoot, trap and skeet, and rimfire rifle[]” practice; defining a “Sportsman’s Club” as a “nonprofit entity formed for conservation of wildlife or game, and to provide members with opportunities for hunting, fishing or shooting”; and switching Clubs to a “conditional use.”Drummond sued, alleging that the rules restrict his customers’ efforts to acquire firearms and maintain proficiency and were facially unconstitutional. The Third Circuit vacated the dismissal of the complaint. In identifying which rules invade the Second Amendment, courts identify historical outliers—laws that lack traditional counterparts. In applying heightened scrutiny, courts look for laws with few parallels in contemporary practice. The more “exceptional” a rule, the more likely the government has overlooked less burdensome “options that could serve its interests.” The challenged zoning rules constitute outliers, and the pleading-stage materials fail to justify their anomalous features. View "Drummond v. Robinson Township" on Justia Law

Trinh sued Fineman, who had been appointed by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County as a receiver in a case involving the dissolution of Trinh’s beauty school. She alleged that Fineman did not give her a proper accounting of the escrow account related to that case and accused him of theft. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, explaining that Trinh had not raised “any claims arising under federal law or [alleged] that the parties are citizens of different states.” The Third Circuit remanded to allow Trinh to amend her complaint. Her amended complaint asserted that Fineman, as the receiver, was “abusing his state power.”The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. Although Trinh’s complaint arguably raised a section 1983 claim, Fineman, as a court-appointed receiver, is entitled to absolute, quasi-judicial immunity from suit when acting with the authority of the court. Erroneous, controversial, and even unfair decisions do not divest a judge of immunity. Fineman was duly appointed by the state court and the transcript of that court's hearing reflects that the judge was aware of, and approved of, all of his expenditures. View "Trinh v. Fineman" on Justia Law

Lozano, a former Marine, was discharged for medical reasons and suffers from severe asthma, impaired airway, limited motion in his knees and ankle, and total blindness in one eye. Lozano has a handicapped parking permit and a permit for tinted windows on his car. Lozano’s car was parked partly within a handicapped parking space when Sergeant Dorilus arrived. Dorilus could not see the handicapped placard on the dashboard and required Lozano to provide his license and registration, and his permits for handicapped parking and tinted windows. Dorilus claims that Lozano “reeked of alcohol.” Lozano denied having consumed any alcohol and refused to submit to the field sobriety test, claiming he was physically unable to do so. Dorilus arrested Lozano. Officer Hernandez was “present” throughout these events. At the station, Hernandez helped process Lozano. Other officers gave Lozano two breathalyzer tests, but could not provide a sufficient breath sample. During a third breathalyzer test, Lozano had an asthma attack and had to be taken to the hospital. Dorilus charged Lozano with DUI and refusal to take a breath test, After Lozano provided medical records, the charges were dismissed.Lozano subsequently sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act The district court denied the officers’ qualified immunity summary judgment motions. The Third Circuit reversed as to Officer Hernandez, who was not involved in arresting or charging Lozano and therefore is entitled to qualified immunity. View "Lozano v. New Jersey" on Justia Law