This week, the Ninth Circuit closely guarded its own jurisdiction while putting government litigants on the back foot. Read on to find out why county jailors’ qualified immunity appeal was dismissed, and how the Court handled...more
Foley Hoag LLP publishes this quarterly Update primarily concerning developments in product liability and related law from federal and state courts applicable to Massachusetts, but also featuring selected developments for New...more
On May 13, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt, No. 18–325, and resolved a circuit split regarding the statute of limitations for an FCA claim brought by a relator...more
Real Property Update - • Foreclosure / Reverse Mortgage / Condition Precedent: bank failed to establish that the subject property was not the principal residence of surviving co-borrower under its reverse mortgage, a...more
In Morse v. Fisher Asset Management, LLC, 2019 Pa. Super. 78, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania considered whether the plaintiff’s action was stayed when the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint after sustaining...more
Although there have not been any groundbreaking cases to start the new year, 2019 is off to a good start for the TCPA defense bar. Several courts have denied class certification in putative TCPA class actions while other...more
The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal recently ruled that the statute of limitations under Louisiana’s anti-discrimination law is only tolled during the pendency of an administrative or investigative review, not to...more
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a plaintiff may bring strictly state-based claims in federal district court if they are related to a claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction. This is more commonly known as...more
• Under the FCA there are multiple circuit court splits related to how power should be allocated between the United States and the relator and whether the relator has contributed sufficient value to merit obtaining a...more
On January 22, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Artis v. District of Columbia, No. 16-640, that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) suspends the statutes of limitations on state law claims while those claims are pending in federal court....more
On January 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its first 5-4 merits decision of the term in Artis v. District of Columbia. In this opinion, the Court held that bringing state claims in federal court stops the clock on the...more
The United States Supreme Court gave plaintiffs an undisputed win on Monday when it decided Artis v. District of Columbia. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that when a plaintiff brings both state and federal law claims in...more
On January 22, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 opinion in Artis v. District of Columbia, Case No. 16-460, clarifying the application of 28 U.S.C. section 1367(d)....more
The federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, allows a litigant with a federal claim to bring into federal court with it any state claims that are so related to the federal claim that they “form part of the...more
On June 13, 2017, Chief Judge Smith of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed in part the District Court’s dismissal of claims for breach of contract as untimely. Norman v. Elkin, No. 16-1924 (3d...more
In Murphy v. Hinton, No. COA14-1230 (July 7, 2015), the North Carolina Court of Appeals determined that a complaint dismissed voluntarily cannot benefit from the "one-year refiling" period pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the...more