TORT

Ye v. US, April 30

Plaintiff was hospitalized for severe heart problems hours after a doctor at a Philadelphia district health center failed to determine that anything was wrong despite clear signs to the contrary. J. Smith finds that plaintiff cannot proceed with a constitutional tort action under the state-created-danger theory of liability since a mere assurance from a doctor, however negligent, cannot be considered a "restraint of personal liberty" similar to incarceration under the due process clause. Reversed.

-----------------------------

IMMIGRATION

Nnadika v. US Attorney General, April 27

J. Sloviter finds that a petition for review of the final order of removal was improper because petitioner's arguments do not point to any legal error in the order, namely, the Board of Immigration Appeals' order that upheld the immigration judge's denial of a motion to reopen. To the extent that his arguments concern his asylum petition, the matter should remain with the district court. Dismissed in part.

-----------------------------

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, HABEAS

McAleese v. Brennan, April 27

J. Greenberg finds that the statute of limitations for defendant's habeas petition began when his parole was denied, despite the fact that he did not receive certain documents until later, because the documents were not essential to his appeal from the denial. Affirmed.

-----------------------------

PLEA, SENTENCING

US v. Gwinntt, April 26

J. Sloviter finds that a waiver of appeal in a plea agreement does not automatically bar an appeal of a sentence but that defendant knowingly and voluntarily signed her waiver and failed to present evidence that its enforcement will cause a miscarriage of justice. Affirmed.

----------------------------------

OBSTRUCTION, SENTENCING

US v. Batista, April 25

J. Fisher holds that feigning mental illness to avoid trial can properly be considered obstruction of justice and can thus be used to enhance a sentence. Due process rights, though they protect mentally incompetent defendants, do not permit a defendant to expend government time and resources on evaluations where a defendant is deliberately misleading the court. Affirmed.

------------------------

LABOR

In re Continental Airlines, Inc., April 24

Pilots for Eastern Airlines entered into a collective bargaining agreement, which stated that if Eastern merged with another airline, the Eastern pilots' seniority rights would be fairly integrated with those of the new airline. Eastern merge with Continental Airlines, and Continental refused to bargain over seniority rights. J. Fuentes finds that the pilots cannot compel arbitration of their claims against Continental because the claims were discharged by Continental's bankruptcy. Plaintiffs do not have any real claims against Continental's current employees. Affirmed.

-------------------------

INSURANCE, CIVIL PROCEDURE

State Farm v. Rosenthal, April 20

J. Van Antwerpen finds that plaintiff's underinsured motorist claim is not time-barred because the circuit predicts that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would begin running the statute of limitations on the date an insurer settles or obtains an award for less than the amount of the damages.

------------------------------

HABEAS, DEATH PENALTY

Albrecht v. Horn, April 19

Defendant was found guilty of murdering his wife, mother and daughter by setting his home on fire and was given the death penalty. J. Cowen finds that Mills introduced a new rule of constitutional law that could not be applied retroactively, and that defendant is therefore not entitled to habeas relief under that case. Vacated.

------------------------

MILITARY

Rendell v. Rumsfeld, April 18

J. Nygaard finds that the Secretary of Defense merely recommended and did not mandate the deactivation of the 111th Fighter Wing of the Pennsylvania National Guard, and thus the Pennsylvania governor's challenge to the recommendation is unnecessary and moot. Vacated.

------------------------

SENTENCING, CONFRONTATION

USA v. Robinson, April 16

Defendant claimed that the use of hearsay evidence at his sentencing hearing violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers. J. Aldisert finds that Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause does not give defendants the right to cross-examine out-of-court witnesses at sentencing. Affirmed.

---------------------------

IMMIGRATION

Chukwu v. Attorney General, April 16
Chukwu v. Attorney General, April 13

[Revised opinion.] Petitioner claimed membership in a government opposition group would subject him to torture or death if he returned home to Nigeria. J. Gibson finds the immigration judge improperly failed to take into account evidence that explained discrepancies in petitioner's testimony and failed to determine whether it was reasonable to expect the petitioner to corroborate certain evidence. The judge must give petitioner notice of what corroboration will be expected and an opportunity to present an explanation if the applicant cannot produce such corroboration. Vacated.

---------------------------

IMMIGRATION

Chukwu v. Attorney General, April 13

Petitioner claimed membership in a government opposition group would subject him to torture or death if he returned home to Nigeria. J. Gibson finds the immigration judge improperly failed to take into account evidence that explained discrepancies in petitioner's testimony and failed to determine whether it was reasonable to expect the petitioner to corroborate certain evidence. The judge must give petitioner notice of what corroboration will be expected and an opportunity to present an explanation if the applicant cannot produce such corroboration. Vacated.

--------------------------------------

PUBLIC RECORD

USA v. Wecht, April 12

J. Fuentes finds that media outlets have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a trial rule that limits public dissemination of information in criminal trials. The rule should be modified to prohibit only speech that would substantially affect the outcome of trials. The records that were unsealed, specifically the personnel records of the investigating FBI agent, were of substantial public concern but were also relevant to defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Defendant failed, however, to show that the trial judge's conduct showed a bias significant enough to be grounds for dismissal.

----------------------------------------

IMMIGRATION

Jarbough v. Attorney General, April 11

J. Chagares finds that the circuit lacks jurisdiction to determine whether the late filing of petitioner's asylum application is excusable due to extraordinary circumstances because petitioner's claims of factual error provide no colorable basis for a constitutional challenge. The harassment and interrogation petitioner suffered because of his political views and religion was not sufficiently abusive to warrant withholding of removal. Dismissed in part.

----------------------------

EDUCATION

Doe v. Abington Friends School, April 11
Doe v. Abington Friends School, March 15

[Amended opinion.] Plaintiffs claimed the Abington Friends School failed to diagnose their son's learning disabilities, subjected him to unfair treatment, and attempted to force him to withdraw. J. Ambro finds the trial court violated civil procedure rules when it barred plaintiffs' claim on grounds of religious exemption for the school because it did so on the basis of a single affidavit from defendants and without giving plaintiffs a chance to undertake discovery regarding the reasons for the exemption. Vacated.

----------------------------

IMMIGRATION, JURISDICTION

Shehu v. US Attorney General, April 9

J. Smith finds that the circuit has jurisdiction over the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of asylum to Shehu because the denial of a Visa Waiver Program applicant's petition for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment constitutes a final order of removal. Nothing compels the conclusion that Shehu is "more likely than not" to be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the Albanian government upon his return. Affirmed.

-----------------------------

ARBITRATION

Ehleiter v. Grapetree Shores, April 6

After litigating before the Virgin Islands Superior Court for nearly four years, appellant moved to stay the court proceedings under the Federal Arbitration Act. J. Stapleton finds that the Act conferred jurisdiction on the appellate division to review the superior court's denial of appellant's motion. The appellate division properly upheld the decision because appellant waived any right it had to arbitrate by actively litigating this case before the superior court. Affirmed.

----------------------------

EMPLOYMENT

Andreoli v. Gates, April 6

While working for the Department of Defense at the Defense Supply Center in Philadelphia for 11 years, plaintiff was repeatedly sexually harassed by a co-worker through incidents that ranged from lewd talk, to pushing his hand between plaintiff's legs, to swerving at her in a car in the parking lot as if to run her over. Plaintiff claimed that her superiors did little to fix the situation and plaintiff eventually left work due to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and depression. J. Rendell finds that the lower court improperly found for the employer on her hostile work environment claim because a reasonable jury could find that management at the Department failed to take prompt and adequate remedial action after learning of the harassment. Reversed in part.

----------------------------

SENTENCING 

US v. Watson, April 5

J. Van Antwerpen finds that defendant's sentence for bank robbery was reasonable because the record amply demonstrates the district judge's understanding that the guidelines are advisory and her meaningful consideration of the sentencing factors in reaching defendant's sentence. The mere fact that a court may take into account or mention correction or rehabilitation along with other factors when it arrives at or explains its sentence is not enough to demonstrate that the lower court imposed a prison term or lengthened the term of imprisonment because of such considerations. Affirmed.

-------------------------

CONSTRUCTION

Fletcher-Harlee v. Pote Concrete Contractors, April 5

Pote Concrete Contractors submitted a written price quotation to the general contractor for providing the concrete for a project, but the "bid" specifically stated, contrary to commercial practice, that the price was not a firm offer and could not be relied upon. The contractor accepted the bid, and Pote raised its price. J. Ambro finds that the district court properly dismissed the contractor's complaint because the language of the disclaimer was "so plain, we have no choice but to enforce it." The lower court properly dismissed with prejudice because the contractor never properly requested to amend its complaint. Affirmed.

-------------------------

BANKRUPTCY, FRAUD

VFB v. Campbell Soup, April 4
VFB v. Campbell Soup, March 30

[Amended opinion.] A bankrupt entity created by the spin-off and subsequent financial failure of Vlasic Foods, one of Campbell Soup's subsidiaries, sued Campbell on behalf of disappointed creditors for fraudulent transfer on the ground that Vlasic sold its food companies for less than it had paid for those companies. J. Cudahy finds that plaintiff failed to show that Campbell improperly inflated the value of the assets before the spin-off because the Vlasic's problems were common knowledge, and the market valuation most likely reflected this. Affirmed.

-------------------------

RICO, INSURANCE

Weiss v. First Unum Life Insurance, April 3

Plaintiff claimed that his insurer discontinued payment of his disability benefits as part of the insurer's racketeering scheme involving an intentional and illegal policy of rejecting expensive payouts to disabled insureds. J. Rendell finds that the district court improperly dismissed plaintiff's claim because there is nothing in the regulatory scheme that indicates that to allow other remedies as part of its regulation of insurance would frustrate or interfere with New Jersey's insurance regime. Reversed.

------------------------------------

PRISONERS RIGHTS

Williams v. Beard, April 3

A sergeant refused to transfer a prisoner to a different cell after he had a conflict with his cellmate, and the cellmate later slashed the prisoner's face with a knife. J. Barry finds that the lower court improperly found for the unit manager on the prisoner's complaint that the prison staff failed to protect him from the assault. The prisoner's failure to name the unit manager in his original complaint should be excused, as the initial review response evidences knowledge on the part of prison officials not only that there was a problem, but that the unit manager was involved. Reversed.

------------------------------------

PRIVILEGE, ERISA

Wachtel v. Health Net, April 2
McCoy v Health Net, April 2

Plaintiffs allege that Health Net relied on antiquated data and improper methods to define usual, customary, and reasonable charges, which violated both New Jersey law and Health Net's duties as a statutory fiduciary under ERISA. J. Roth finds that the district court improperly ordered Health Net to produce attorney-client communications under the "fiduciary exception" to the attorney-client privilege because, even if the circuit were to adopt the fiduciary exception, the exception would not apply to the Health Net in this case. Vacated.