The battle over workers' rights and employers' desire to conduct business lawsuit-free turned another page recently. In Faush v. Tuesday Morning. Inc,The Third Circuit overturned a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant temp-employer, remanding the case back to the lower court for further findings. The language applied in the court's opinion spells more trouble ahead for employers seeking to blur the distinction between 'temp' and 'employee.'
An Internet privacy class action against Google was revived by the Third Circuit recently. The class action began after it was revealed that Google was circumventing cookie blockers, the browser features that prevent advertisers and other third parties from tracking Internet users.
The class action was originally dismissed on summary judgment, but the Third Circuit found that Google's actions, as alleged, "highly offensive," deceitful, and possibly in violation of California privacy law.
The Third Circuit has just ruled that a real estate developer has standing to sue the owners of Shop-Rite over anti-competitive behavior that would stymie the opening of a Wegmans in Hanover, New Jersey.
The lengthy opinion outlines and clarifies the limits and intended application of the justiciability doctrine and antitrust immunity under Noerr-Pennington.
The Third Circuit really split hairs when it ruled that the content and justification of a Notice of Removal would determine whether or not an alien should be deported or not.
Narinder Singh petitioned the Board of Immigration Appeals to review his case. He moved the BIA to dismiss an order by his Immigration Judge that he should be removed and that he also was ineligible for removal of that order under U.S.C. sec. 1229(b)a because he was not continuously in the USA for seven years. Then the facts get nit-picky ...
Have you tried to get your auto-insurance to foot the bill for damages arising from an incident that happened before you bought their policy? Sounds ridiculous, right? Well that's essentially what Urban Outfitters tried doing.
The Third Circuit ruled that Urban Outfitters can't crash into someone's mailbox, then buy insurance and have the insurance pay for the mailbox. Hanover Insurance will not be indemnifying Urban Outfitters' trademark violations of the Navajo Nation's trademark on goods that evoke the Navajo, or alleged market confusion. Reuters reports that a case of this type is one of first impression for the Third Circuit. If that's true, that's astounding. But for some reason, there's lot of this sort of IP "first impression" business going on in the Third Circuit.
What does the word 'renewal' mean? The answer to that question could have greater legal import that you might expect. In fact, that question essentially sums up the legal issue that was the core of Indian Harbor Insurance v. F&M Equipment, Ltd.
The 3rd Circuit Ruled on October 15 that "renewal" -- at least in the context of insurance terms -- means "more of the same."
A civil rights lawsuit over the New York Police Department's post-September 11th spying on Muslims in New Jersey was reinstated on Tuesday in a Third Circuit opinion. A group of Muslim plaintiffs had alleged that the program unconstitutionally treated their religion as a "proxy for criminality," resulting in "pervasive surveillance not visited upon ... any other religious faith or the public at large."
Under the program, New York police officers infiltrated Muslim groups, from student associates to mosques, in New York City and beyond, videotaping them and tracking their activities. In allowing the suit to go forward, the Third Circuit opinion drew parallels between the spying, the Cold War's Red Scare, and the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals all but sided with a pair of Pennsylvania construction businessmen by vacating their sentences and overruling the sentencing court. To their credit, however, the panel was simply applying court rules.
The case involved defrauding the government by taking advantage of government benefits outlined in the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Act. The Court's ruling clarifies how damages are to be properly calculated when funds are illicitly secured and work is actually completed.
The situation is routine: a patient with an ERISA-governed health care plan goes in for a procedure. She signs an assignment form, giving her provider the right to collect payment under her plan directly. The assignment allows the provider to deal directly with the insurer in negotiating payment, taking administrative actions and potentially suing in federal court, should the health care plan refuse to pay for the procedure.
That is, except in the District Court of New Jersey, where an unusual intra-district split left district courts divided over whether the assignment for payment also included the right to sue to collect those payments. That divide was solved by the Third Circuit last week when it ruled that, yes, assignments for payment also confer standing to enforce those payments.
The Third Circuit recently struck down an attempt by New Jersey to legalize sports betting, holding that the state law conflicts with federal gambling rules. The ruling marks the second time the court has slapped down New Jersey's attempts to legalize betting.
New Jersey has sought for years to allow sports betting, in hopes that letting sports fans put a few bucks down on the home team would liven up the state's faltering casinos. Voters even approved a constitutional amendment in 2012 authorizing betting. Unfortunately for New Jersey, the state has twice failed to find a way around federal laws prohibiting state-sponsored sports betting.