Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 73)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 73)
Appellate decisions from the week of April 1, 2024
“On the children’s show Rainbow Rangers, Rosie Redd, her fellow Rangers, and their trusty unicorn sidekick Floof use their superpowers to save Earth from disaster. Our judicial power is slightly less sweeping, but today we use it to save portions of a securities-fraud complaint from erroneous dismissal.
Judge Mendoza, In re: Alavi v. Genius Brands International, Inc.
Decision Summaries
Fourth Circuit
United States v. Sanchez-Garcia
The Fourth Circuit held that the federal statute criminalizing the reentry of deported non-citizens does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment because it was not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose, joining every other circuit court to analyze the issue.
Fifth Circuit
D&T Partners v. Baymark Partners
The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiff company failed to plead a pattern of criminal activity sufficient to sustain its racketeering claim against the defendant companies and individuals. The panel highlighted that the alleged fraudulent scheme only targeted limited victims in a singular transaction.
Career Colleges v. Department of Education
The Fifth Circuit ordered the district court to grant preliminary injunction against the Department of Education’s new regulations facilitating student loan discharges. The panel held that the effects of the rule would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff career colleges by imposing significant financial costs in administrative proceedings to recoup forgiven loan amounts and that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the rule is arbitrary and capricious.
Sixth Circuit
RJ Control Consultants, Inc. v. Multiject, LLC
The Sixth Circuit held that the district court properly granted summary judgment for the defendant when the plaintiff failed to properly present expert evidence to support its copyright infringement claim. The panel rejected the plaintiff’s argument that its due-process rights were violated because “it was the duty of the court to give adequate notice to the parties that such expert evidence would be necessary.”
Seventh Circuit
Economic Loss Plaintiffs v. Abbott Laboratories
The Seventh Circuit held that the class of plaintiffs alleging economic loss due to the defendant manufacturer’s contamination of infant formula failed to sufficiently plead that they suffered any injury where they faced only “potential” health effects. The panel rejected the argument that plaintiffs were injured because they paid a “premium price” for the defective product, believing it had been produced in sanitary conditions.
Eighth Circuit
United States v. Winder
The Eighth Circuit held that police did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they searched a hotel room after the defendant was ejected because the proprietor then found drugs in the hotel room. The panel affirmed the district court’s finding that the later police search was lawful based on the proprietor’s consent.
Ninth Circuit
United States v. Sapalasan
The Ninth Circuit held that the police may constitutionally conduct an inventory search of belongings when the property is lawfully retained and the search is done in compliance with police regulations, even after the individual has been released.
In re: Alavi v. Genius Brands International, Inc.
The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff shareholders’ securities-fraud claim survived dismissal where the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant children’s entertainment company fraudulently concealed its relationship with its stock promoter and exaggerated its connections to Nickelodeon Jr., Disney, Netflix, and Stan Lee.
Eleventh Circuit
United States v. Vargas
The Eleventh Circuit held that the thirty-five-month delay between the defendant’s indictment and arrest, due in large part to the COVID-19 global pandemic, did not rise to a “flagrant and inexcusable” deprivation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.
If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email Ben at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com or Antonia at agelorme@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.
