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

Venoco operated a drilling rig off the coast of Santa Barbara, transporting oil and gas to its Onshore Facility for processing. Venoco did not own the Offshore Facility but leased it from the California Lands Commission. Venoco owned the Onshore Facility with air permits to use it. Following a 2015 pipeline rupture, Venoco filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and abandoned its leases, relinquishing all rights in the Offshore Facility.Concerned about public safety and environmental risks, the Commission took over decommissioning the rig and plugging the wells, paying Venoco $1.1 million per month to continue operating the Offshore and Onshore Facilities. After a third-party contractor took over operations, the Commission agreed to pay for use of the Onshore Facility. The Commission, as Venoco’s creditor, filed a $130 million claim for reimbursement of plugging and decommissioning costs. Before the confirmation of the liquidation plan, Venoco and the Commission unsuccessfully negotiated a potential sale of the Onshore Facility to the Commission. The Commission stopped making payments, arguing it could continue using the Onshore Facility without payment under its police power.After the estates’ assets were transferred to a liquidation trust, the Trustee filed an adversary proceeding, claiming inverse condemnation, against California. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s rejection of California's assertion of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The Third Circuit affirmed. By ratifying the Bankruptcy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, states waived their sovereign immunity defense in proceedings that further a bankruptcy court’s exercise of its jurisdiction over the debtor's and the estate's property. View "In re Venoco, LLC" on Justia Law

Cohen entered into a work-for-hire agreement with SLP, a special purpose entity formed by TWC to make the film, Silver Linings Playbook. Cohen was to receive $250,000 in fixed initial compensation and contingent future compensation of roughly 5% of the movie’s net profits. The movie was released to critical acclaim in 2012. TWC purports to own all the rights pertaining to the movie, including the Cohen Agreement.In 2017, following a flood of sexual misconduct allegations against its co-founder, Harvey Weinstein, TWC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court approved TWC’s Asset Purchase Agreement with Spyglass, 11 U.S.C. 363. Spyglass sought a declaratory judgment that the Cohen Agreement and had been sold to Spyglass. If the Cohen Agreement were an executory contract, assumed and assigned under section 365, Spyglass would be responsible for approximately $400,000 in previously unpaid contingent compensation. If Spyglass instead purchased the Cohen Agreement as a non-executory contract, Spyglass would be responsible only for obligations on a go-forward basis. Other writers, producers, and actors with similar works-made-for-hire contracts made similar arguments.The bankruptcy court granted Spyglass summary judgment. The district court and Third Circuit affirmed. Cohen’s remaining obligations under the Agreement are not material and the parties did not clearly avoid New York’s substantial performance rule; the Cohen Agreement is not an executory contract. View "The Weinstein Co. Holdings, LLC v. Spyglass Media Group, LLC." on Justia Law

In March 2018, following sexual misconduct allegations against TWC’s co-founder Harvey Weinstein, TWC sought bankruptcy protection. TWC and Spyglass signed the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA). The sale closed in July 2018. Spyglass paid $287 million. Spyglass agreed to assume all liabilities associated with the Purchased Assets, including some “Contracts.” The APA identifies “Assumed Contracts,” as those Contracts that Spyglass would designate in writing, by November 2018.In May 2018, TWC filed an Assumed Contracts Schedule, with a disclaimer that the inclusion of a contract did not constitute an admission that such contract is executory or unexpired. A June 2018 Contract Notice, listed eight Investment Agreements as “non-executory contracts that are being removed from the Assumed Contracts Schedule.” The Investment Agreements, between TWC and Investors, had provided funding for TWC films in exchange for shares of future profits. Spyglass’s November 2018 Contract Notice listed nine Investment Agreements as “Excluded Contracts,”In January 2019, the Investors requested payments from Spyglass--their asserted share of a film’s profits. The Bankruptcy Court rejected the Investors’ claim that Spyglass bought all the Investment Agreements under the APA. The district court and Third Circuit affirmed. The Investment Agreements are not “Purchased Assets” and the associated obligations are not “Assumed Liabilities.” The Investment Agreements are not executory contracts under the Bankruptcy Code. View "The Weinstein Co. Holdings, LLC v. Y Movie, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2010, Figueroa, a citizen of Honduras, entered the U.S. unlawfully. He told an asylum officer, Figueroa stated that his father, uncle, and cousins were killed in Honduras and that he feared their killers would also kill him; he referred to rivals seeking to seize his father’s land and to his father reporting his sister’s rape by gang members. After his removal, Figueroa reentered the U.S. in 2012. DHS reinstated Figueroa’s prior removal order. This time Figueroa attributed the deaths of his family members to the gang responsible for raping his sister. He claimed that his father was involved in anti-gang political activities, that the gang once beat him, and that the gang continued to threaten him and his family. He produced police reports and testified that those reports never resulted in arrests. The IJ denied found that Figueroa faced a clear probability of future harm in Honduras due to his membership in a particular social group (his family) but that such harm from private actors would not constitute persecution or torture. The BIA determined that Figueroa did not establish either that the Honduran government was “unable or unwilling to control” the gang, or that the government “condoned the private actions or at least demonstrated a complete helplessness to protect [him].”The Third Circuit denied relief, noting that Figueroa might be a fugitive disentitled to relief. In denying his application for statutory withholding of removal, the agency did not err in treating the unable-or-unwilling-to-control test and the condone-or-complete helplessness test as legal equivalents. Figueroa did not demonstrate the requisite connection between the gang’s acts and the government. Substantial evidence supports the BIA conclusion, in denying CAT protection, that Honduran police would investigate reports from Figueroa, so he failed to establish governmental acquiescence to torture. View "Figueroa v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

In 1999, Holland was charged with drug and conspiracy crimes and using a gun to murder someone during those crimes. Count Three charged him with using a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime and with aiding and abetting that crime, 18 U.S.C. 924(c). Holland’s customer, Stewart, testified that she regularly bought crack cocaine from him and had once traded a gun to Holland for cash and drugs. Based on that exchange, the jury found that the gun had been used during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. Holland was convicted on all charges, except the murder count. The court imposed two life sentences plus a five-year consecutive term on Count Three.After an unsuccessful direct appeal, he unsuccessfully sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. In 2007, the Supreme Court held, in “Watson,” that a person does not “use” a gun under section 924(c) when he trades away drugs for a gun. Holland sought habeas relief under section 2241. The district court dismissed, reasoning that he should have filed under 2255.The district court dismissed two more identical 2241 petitions as successive under section 2244(a). The Third Circuit affirmed. Holland's fourth 2241 petition based on Watson was not treated as successive. The court found that the petition was properly filed under 2241 since a 2255 motion would be “inadequate or ineffective” to test the legality of Holland’s detention but denied Holland’s petition on the merits. The Third Circuit vacated, reasoning that neither Holland nor his trading partner appears to have violated section 924(c), so he may be actually innocent. View "Holland v. Warden Canaan USP" on Justia Law

Doe became a TCNJ tenure-track Assistant Professor in 2016, after giving birth to her third child. She alleges that the Dean and the Department Chair suggested that they were relieved that she would not need pregnancy-related accommodations in the future. Doe received positive reviews for 2017. Doe claims that after she became pregnant again, she was reassigned to a less desirable class. After Doe had her fourth child, the Dean, the Chair, and others, repeatedly asked whether she was done having children. She notified TCNJ that she was pregnant again. In 2018, a TCNJ professor attended the same class that the professor had positively reviewed in 2017 but entered a negative review; Doe claims there were no material changes. The Chair reported “non-material deficiencies” after having given her a positive review in 2017. Doe complained to the Provost, who allegedly “placed a record of discipline” in Doe’s personnel file for the Reappointment Committee. She claims she “suffered emotional trauma, became depressed, and had a miscarriage,” and that she was falsely accused of canceling classes, supported by “doctored” student comments. Doe was not reappointed.She filed suit, alleging gender, national origin, and pregnancy discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of her motion to proceed anonymously. Doe’s case does not merit appellate review under the collateral order doctrine. Nothing indicated that Doe’s interest in anonymity outweighs the public’s interest in open judicial proceedings. View "Doe v. The College of New Jersey" on Justia Law

Thayalan, a citizen of Sri Lanka, was apprehended near the U.S.– Mexico border after making an illegal entry. Thayalan expressed a fear of returning to Sri Lanka. The asylum officer found that Thayalan had demonstrated a credible fear of persecution Thayalan testified that in 2007, when he was about 16 years old, he was kidnapped and blindfolded by members of the Sri Lankan army. While he was detained, soldiers hit his head against a wall and punched him in the stomach. He also described 2019 incidents, when members of the Eelam People’s Democratic Party (EPDP) tried to extort money from him because of the EPDP’s false belief that he financially supported a rival political party.Thayalan was ordered removed based on findings that the army’s mistreatment of Thayalan did not rise to the level of persecution and the EPDP members targeted Thayalan for extortion because they wanted his money, not because of disapproval of any political opinion. Thayalan failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a ground protected by statute and was ineligible for both asylum and withholding of removal. The Third Circuit denied a petition for review, rejecting arguments that the past-persecution determination contravened its precedents and that substantial evidence did not support the agency’s determination about what motivated the EPDP’s extortion efforts.. View "Thayalan v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

In 1997, Romero, a citizen of Guatemala, was granted voluntary departure, having entered the U.S. without documentation. In 2011, Romero was removed. He returned almost immediately. When he was taken into custody, DHS notified Romero of its intent to reinstate his prior removal order. Romero expressed a fear of returning to Guatemala and was referred to an asylum officer, 8 C.F.R. 208.31(b). Finding that Romero had “a reasonable fear of persecution,” the asylum officer referred the matter to an IJ.The Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge provided the place of the hearing, noting that the date and time were “To Be Determined.” Romero subsequently received a Notice of Withdrawal-Only Hearing that included the date, time, and place. The IJ denied withholding of removal. Before the BIA, Romero cited the Supreme Court’s 2018 “Pereira” decision, and argued that “[a] notice of referral to [an] immigration judge is an analogous document to a notice to appear and must contain a location and a date and time for a removal hearing in order to create jurisdiction for an immigration court.”The BIA rejected Romero’s jurisdictional challenge, reasoning that it lacked the authority to grant the relief Mejia Romero sought – termination of the proceedings – in a withholding proceeding. The Third Circuit denied a petition for review. Romero’s Notice of Withholding-Only Hearing included the information required by the regulations. Pereira’s holding is not readily transferable to 8 C.F.R. 1003.14. View "Romero v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

In 2002, at the age of seven, Sanchez, a citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. without inspection. In 2012, he obtained Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status; DHS periodically granted him renewals. In 2019, Sanchez was charged in New Jersey with sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a child. USCIS revoked Sanchez’s DACA status. DHS took him into custody and charged him as being present without having been admitted or paroled, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(ii).Sanchez applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and for relief under the Convention Against Torture. The IJ denied asylum, finding that Sanchez failed to meet the one-year filing deadline or show extraordinary circumstances; denied withholding of removal, finding the proposed social group was not cognizable; and denied his CAT claim, finding he did not demonstrate at least a 50 percent chance he would be tortured upon his return to Mexico. Two weeks after the IJ ordered Sanchez’s removal, his state criminal charges were dismissed.The BIA denied remand, citing then-Attorney General Sessions’ 2018 Castro-Tum holding that, under the regulations governing the Executive Office of Immigration Review, IJs and the BIA do not have the general authority to indefinitely suspend immigration proceedings by administrative closure unless a regulation or a previous judicially approved settlement expressly authorizes such an action. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded. The relevant regulations confer the general authority to administratively close cases to IJs and the BIA. View "Sanchez v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

In 1994, K.A., a citizen of Nigeria, entered the U.S. without documentation. In 1997, he married a U.S. citizen. He subsequently committed second-degree robbery (N.J. Stat. 2C:15-1) and received a 10-year sentence, and committed third-degree possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school (2C:35-7), resulting in a five-year sentence. K.A. was paroled in 2008. During removal proceedings, K.A. was stopped for DUI and was charged with using inmates’ personal information to submit fraudulent tax returns. K.A. unsuccessfully sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The Third Circuit denied K.A.’s petition for review.In 2014, Nigeria criminalized same-sex sexual relationships. K.A. had begun a sexual relationship with his male cellmate. K.A. realized that his “identity as a bisexual man [was] permanent” and moved to reopen his immigration proceedings, arguing changed country conditions in Nigeria. He asserted that his New Jersey drug conviction no longer qualified as an aggravated felony and expressed fear that he would be subjected to persecution as a member of the LGBT community. The BIA denied K.A.’s motion. The Third Circuit denied a petition for review. The 2000 New Jersey robbery conviction constitutes an aggravated felony “theft offense” under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G), which constitutes a “particularly serious crime,” sections 1158(b)(2)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(B), and disqualifies an alien from seeking asylum. A conviction for a particularly serious crime coupled with a prison sentence of at least five years bars withholding of removal. View "K. A. v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law