Circuit Watcher

Pineda v. Ford Motor Co., 3rd Cir. Mar. 24, 2008

admin — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 05:12:57 +0000

07-1191 Pineda v. Ford Motor Co.
Before: McKEE, AMBRO, Circuit Judges, and IRENAS,¹ Senior District Judge.
IRENAS, Senior United States District Judge. Appellant Jose Pineda is an automobile technician who was injured when the rear liftgate glass of a 2002 Ford Explorer shattered. He filed a products liability action against Appellee Ford Motor Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and retained an expert to support his claims. After extensive discovery and a Daubert hearing,² the District Court³ ruled that Pineda’s proffered expert witness was not qualified to testify and that his methodology was not reliable. The District Court then granted Ford’s motion to exclude the testimony of Pineda’s expert and its motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, we will reverse both decisions and remand for further proceedings. … Pineda v. Ford Motor Co.

Honorable Joseph E. Irenas, Senior United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation. [↩]
A Daubert hearing refers to a pretrial hearing where a court determines whether a proffered expert witness’s testimony is both relevant and reliable, and thus admissible as evidence, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). [↩]
On June 16, 2006, the Honorable Bruce W. Kauffman, United States District Judge, referred this action to the Honorable Jacob P. Hart, United States Magistrate Judge, to conduct any and all proceedings and to order the entry of a final judgment. The referral was made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73 and with the consent of all parties. Upon an appropriate referral and an entry of judgment, “an aggrieved party may appeal directly to the appropriate United States court of appeals from the judgment of the magistrate judge in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of a district court.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3). [↩]

Augustin v. Attorney Gen. of the U.S., 3rd Cir. Mar. 20, 2008

admin — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 01:29:10 +0000

06-4744 Augustin v. Attorney Gen. of the U.S.
BEFORE: RENDELL and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges, and POLLAK,¹ District Judge
POLLAK, District Judge. Luckson Augustin petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) concluding that he is removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal. We are called upon to decide whether the BIA erred in refusing to impute to petitioner his father’s years of continuous residence in order to meet the seven-year requirement for cancellation of removal. … we do not find the BIA’s interpretation of the cancellation of removal provision unreasonable. We will therefore DENY the petition for review. Augustin v. Attorney Gen. of the U.S.

Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. [↩]

Carrascosa v. McGuire, 3rd Cir. Mar. 20, 2008

admin — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 01:22:16 +0000

07-1748 Carrascosa v. McGuire
Before: FUENTES, JORDAN, Circuit Judges and O’NEILL¹, District Judge.
JORDAN, Circuit Judge. Maria José Carrascosa appeals from the District Court’s denial and dismissal with prejudice of her petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which sought to end her detention in the Bergen County, New Jersey jail for violating a civil contempt order issued by the Superior Court of New Jersey. At the heart of this sad case, which raises questions of international and federal law under the Hague Convention’s Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, T.I.A.S. No. 11670 (Nov. 7, 1988) (the “Hague Convention”), is a custody battle over a young girl who has not seen either of her parents in years. Because we agree with the skillful analysis of the District Court, we must affirm. … Carrascosa v. McGuire.

Honorable Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr., United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. [↩]

People Against Police Violence v. City of Pittsburgh, 3rd Cir. Mar. 17, 2008

admin — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:52:51 +0000

06-4457 People Against Police Violence v. City of Pittsburgh
BEFORE: RENDELL and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges, and IRENAS,¹ District Judge
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge: In this appeal we review a District Court’s order awarding attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the City of Pittsburgh’s (“City’s”) ordinance regulating expressive activities in public forums. Plaintiffs’ complaint sought declaratory and permanent injunctive relief; plaintiffs also filed a motion for interim injunctive relief. The District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion and issued a preliminary injunction which prohibited the City from enforcing the challenged ordinance and imposed temporary procedures to govern the issuance of permits for expressive activities in public spaces until the City passed a new ordinance. The District Court also directed the parties to meet and confer regarding the City’s proposals to revise the ordinance and supervised that process as disputes arose. The Court lifted the preliminary injunction and closed the case only after the City passed a revised ordinance which, the parties agreed, corrected all of the alleged constitutional infirmities of the challenged ordinance.
.
Although several of our sister Courts of Appeals have confronted the question, this appeal requires us to determine for the first time whether 42 U.S.C. § 1988 allows a plaintiff to be the “prevailing party” when it achieves relief on the merits of its claims in the form of a preliminary injunction, but does not secure a final judgment in its favor. Under the circumstances of this case, we find that it does. Because we conclude that plaintiffs were the “prevailing party” in this litigation and that the District Court’s fee award was reasonable, we will affirm the order of the District Court. … People Against Police Violence v. City of Pittsburgh.

Hon. Joseph Irenas, Senior District Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation. [↩]

Yusupov v. Atty. Gen. of the U.S., 3rd Cir. Mar. 14, 2008

admin — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 05:42:06 +0000

05-4232, 05-5411, 06-3160 Yusupov v. Atty. Gen. of the U.S.
Before: McKEE and AMBRO, Circuit Judges ACKERMAN,¹ District Judge
AMBRO, Circuit Judge: An alien unlawfully in this country may have his removal blocked under certain circumstances. One is withholding of removal under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 241(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A), which prohibits removal if the Attorney General believes that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in the country of removal. Eligibility for withholding of removal is erased, however, if “there are reasonable grounds to believe that the alien is a danger to the security of the United States.” INA § 241(b)(3)(B)(iv), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(iv). In this case we consider the Attorney General’s interpretation of that exception (commonly referred to as the national security exception). … Yusupov v. Atty. Gen. of the U.S.

Honorable Harold A. Ackerman, Senior United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation. [↩]

Vakker v. Atty. Gen. of the U.S., 3rd Cir. Mar. 14, 2008

admin — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 05:31:05 +0000

06-1949 Vakker v. Atty. Gen. of the U.S.
BEFORE: SLOVITER, SMITH and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge: In the course of removal proceedings brought against him by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Boris Vakker, a “paroled” alien, requested that the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) permit him to renew a previously denied application for adjustment of status. The IJ denied the request. While the proceedings were on appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), Vakker filed a motion with the BIA to remand his case to the IJ for reconsideration of the adjustment of status issue predicated upon an intervening case of this court. The BIA denied the motion to remand, and Vakker petitions this court for review of that ruling. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition. … Vakker v. Atty. Gen. of the U.S.

Bus. Edge Group v. Champion Mortgage, 3rd Cir. Mar. 11, 2008

admin — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:54:49 +0000

07-1059 Bus. Edge Group v. Champion Mortgage
USDC for the District of New Jersey
Before: FUENTES, JORDAN, Circuit Judges, and DUBOIS,¹ District Judge.
FUENTES, Circuit Judge. This case involves a company, The Business Edge Group, Inc. (“Business Edge”), which targeted and subscribed to a vanity toll free telephone number in order to take advantage of the value it presented to Champion Mortgage Company, Inc. (“Champion”). The issue we address is whether Business Edge’s actions violated an FCC regulation which prohibits entities from acquiring toll free telephone numbers in order to sell them and from hoarding toll free telephone numbers. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Business Edge did not sell the telephone number at issue to Champion and that the case must be remanded for a determination of whether Business Edge engaged in hoarding. … Bus. Edge Group v. Champion Mortgage.

Honorable Jan E. DuBois, Senior District Judge for the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. [↩]

LaSala v. Bordier et Cie, 3rd Cir. Mar. 11, 2008

admin — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:51:37 +0000

06-4323 LaSala v. Bordier et Cie
USDC for the District of New Jersey
BEFORE: SLOVITER and AMBRO, Circuit Judges, and POLLAK,¹ District Judge
POLLAK, District Judge: In this appeal, we are called upon to decide whether statelaw aiding-and-abetting-breach-of-fiduciary duty claims, which have passed from a corporation to its bankruptcy estate to a trust, may be brought in federal court by the trustees of the trust notwithstanding the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (“SLUSA”), 15 U.S.C. § 78bb. We must further decide whether, under SLUSA, the trustees, as assignees of individual investors in the bankrupt enterprise, may assert, in federal court, against foreign entities, claims characterized as arising under foreign law for aiding and abetting money laundering. For the reasons that follow, we hold that SLUSA is no impediment to federal adjudication of either the state-law or the foreign-law claims. … LaSala v. Bordier et Cie.

Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. [↩]

3rd Cir. Mar. 6, 2008

admin — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:34:06 +0000

07-2413 USA v. Daniel
USDC for the District Court of the Virgin Islands
06-4055 Kosak v. Dir BCIS
USDC for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
01-9001 Holland v. Horn
USDC for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania