Anthony Joseph Scirica

This case concerns appeals by Lawrence McGeehan and Kathleen Haluska from their federal criminal convictions on multiple counts. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Skilling v. United States, which held that 18 U.S.C. § 1346 honest services fraud applies only to bribery and kickback schemes, the Third Circuit vacated its prior opinion and the district court's judgments on counts 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the superseding indictment. The court remanded for the district court to address in the first instance whether the convictions on counts 23 through 29 were tainted by evidence related to the vacated mail and wire fraud counts, including whether Haluska's guilty plea precludes her from raising the argument.

criminal law

This case is a class action lawsuit by consumers against De Beers entities and related companies, concerning alleged antitrust conduct in the diamond industry. A Third Circuit panel had issued an opinion and judgment on July 13, 2010, resolving appeals by objectors to a proposed settlement. After considering the appellees' petition for rehearing en banc and the appellants' answers, the full court granted the petition, vacated the panel's opinion and judgment, and directed that the case be reheard en banc.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Allen, the defendant, a security guard at a bar, was detained by a SWAT team executing a search warrant for security videos related to a homicide investigation. During the detention, police discovered he was carrying a firearm despite being a convicted felon, leading to his indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Allen moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the detention violated the Fourth Amendment. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the motion, holding that the brief detention was reasonable under precedents like Michigan v. Summers and Los Angeles County v. Rettele, given the high-crime area and risks to officer safety.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

This case involves an appeal by John J. Rigas and Timothy Rigas from their convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 371. The court considered a petition for rehearing filed by the United States regarding whether the statute's two clauses—the offense clause and the defraud clause—amount to separate offenses for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court granted the petition for rehearing en banc limited to that single issue. No additional briefing was required, and the matter was scheduled for argument before the full court. The order directs the parties to submit additional copies of their prior briefs.

criminal law

The case Puleo v. Chase Bank USA, N.A. concerns an unconscionability challenge to a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement between consumers and a bank. The court sua sponte ordered rehearing en banc and scheduled argument for February 17, 2010. Counsel were directed to submit supplemental briefs addressing whether a court or an arbitrator should decide the validity of the waiver, whether that determination depends on whether invalidity would render the entire arbitration clause unenforceable, and the relevance of party agreement on arbitrability or the presence of a severability clause.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerned an identified complaint of judicial misconduct against Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit, based on a Los Angeles Times article reporting that he maintained a publicly accessible website containing sexually explicit photos and videos, including while he was presiding over an obscenity trial. The complaint originated in the Ninth Circuit but was transferred by the Chief Justice to the Judicial Council of the Third Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 351(b) and Rule 26 for investigation. The Council appointed a special committee to examine the allegations, which focused on whether the material's public accessibility and the judge's actions constituted conduct prejudicial to the effective administration of the courts under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. The opinion details the procedural history, the nature of the material, the judge's explanations regarding private intent and lack of awareness of public access, and the applicable standards from the Act and related rules for assessing potential misconduct.

procedure

Joel Gonzalez was terminated from his job as a station agent for Executive Airlines (a subsidiary of AMR) after an incident involving a ticket change fee that was not properly recorded, leading to his claim for unemployment benefits being denied by a VIESA Administrative Law Judge who found misconduct under the Virgin Islands Unemployment Insurance Act. He then sued his former employer and related airlines in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, alleging wrongful discharge under the Virgin Islands Wrongful Discharge Act along with other claims such as breach of employee manuals, defamation, and emotional distress. The District Court granted summary judgment against him, ruling that the ALJ's misconduct finding precluded litigation of the wrongful discharge claim. On appeal, the Third Circuit held that the issues were not identical because the statutory definition of misconduct for unemployment benefits differs from the nine permissible grounds for discharge under the Wrongful Discharge Act, so issue preclusion did not apply; it vacated the summary judgment on the wrongful discharge claim and remanded for further proceedings while affirming on all other claims.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned whether federal district courts could hear claims alleging breach of an interconnection agreement between telecommunications carriers that was negotiated and approved under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, or whether such disputes must first be presented to a state commission. Core Communications sued Verizon in federal court over alleged breaches of their agreement, but the district court dismissed the claims for failure to exhaust state commission review. The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal without prejudice of one count involving direct enforcement of the agreement, holding that the Act's silence on enforcement procedures, combined with its cooperative federalism structure and FCC guidance, requires state commissions to interpret and enforce approved agreements in the first instance. It vacated the dismissal of the remaining counts and remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved defendants charged with conspiracy, causing banks to fail to file Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs), concealing material facts, and operating an illegal gambling business, stemming from a scheme to launder over one million dollars in illegal gambling profits by purchasing bearer bonds through structured transactions. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the Bank Secrecy Act and related statutes did not criminalize structuring currency transactions below the $10,000 reporting threshold and that any such prohibition would be unconstitutionally vague. The court denied the motions to dismiss, holding that while structuring transactions is not unlawful by itself, intentionally breaking up amounts exceeding $10,000 to prevent banks from fulfilling their statutory duty to file CTRs gives rise to criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2 when done with the requisite knowledge and willfulness.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

In Smith v. Wood, plaintiff Lewis duPont Smith filed a § 1983 action claiming that Pennsylvania's guardianship statute, as applied by a state court judge, violated his First Amendment rights by declaring him incompetent due to his political activities and appointing a guardian over his estate. The defendants, including Smith's family members who initiated the state proceedings and the presiding judge, moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion, holding that the family members, as private citizens, did not act under color of state law and thus could not be liable under § 1983. It further ruled that the judge, sued in his official neutral capacity, was not a proper party. The court also noted that abstention would be appropriate given the ongoing state proceedings.

civil rightsfederal powerfamily lawprocedure

This case concerned whether a bankruptcy court could allow a creditor's proof of claim filed after the statutory deadline under Section 57(n) of the Bankruptcy Act due to equitable considerations such as the trustee's delay in objecting. An involuntary bankruptcy petition was filed against Fleming Construction Corporation in 1978, with a December 1, 1978 deadline for claims; the appellant filed on December 29, 1978, but the trustee objected in 1985. The bankruptcy court disallowed the claim as untimely, and the district court affirmed on appeal. The court held that Third Circuit precedent requires strict adherence to the six-month filing period with no discretion for equitable extensions or laches exceptions, even where prejudice might result.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a former Interstate Commerce Commission investigator who alleged that agency officials harassed him after he provided information to a congressional subcommittee, leading to his medical retirement, and who sought reinstatement to another federal position along with back pay under the Administrative Procedure Act and Mandamus Act. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims. It reasoned that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies by not first pursuing an appeal through the Civil Service Commission (now the Merit Systems Protection Board) regarding his separation and any related constitutional claims, as required before seeking judicial relief against a federal agency.

labor & employmentprocedurefederal power

The case involved A.J. Canfield Co. petitioning for a preliminary injunction against Concord Beverage Co. to stop the latter from using the designation “Chocolate Fudge” on its diet chocolate fudge soda, based on claims of federal and common law unfair competition. After a hearing with testimony and expert evidence from both sides, the court denied the motion. The ruling rested on detailed findings of fact about the parties' businesses, marketing history, the descriptive character of the term, and the absence of established secondary meaning or other protectable rights sufficient to warrant injunctive relief at that stage.

business & regulatory

The case involved a dispute between marine engineer David Aiello and his employer Apex Marine Corporation, along with the union MEBA, over Aiello's discharge after being hired under an oral agreement for the first crew of the vessel Groton. Aiello claimed breach of contract against Apex and tortious interference plus violation of union constitutional rights against MEBA. The court examined whether admiralty jurisdiction applied to the maritime employment contract or if federal labor law governed due to the superseding effect of the collective bargaining agreement between Apex and MEBA. It addressed motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, considering preemption by the National Labor Relations Board, exhaustion of internal union remedies, and the validity of the individual agreement.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

In Heller v. United States, plaintiff Paul Heller sued the United States and others under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and related statutes for alleged medical malpractice at a U.S. Air Force hospital in the Philippines that led to his wife's death from choriocarcinoma. The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the FTCA does not apply to claims arising in foreign countries. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case, holding that Clark Air Base was under Philippine sovereignty pursuant to a 1979 agreement between the U.S. and the Philippines, so the claims fell within the FTCA's foreign-country exception under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(k) and United States v. Spelar. The court reasoned that because the alleged negligence occurred on foreign soil, the United States retained sovereign immunity and liability could not be imposed under U.S. law.

federal powerproceduretorts & liability