Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The sixth-circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s summary judgment ruling in a dispute involving a personal guaranty on a defaulted loan. The court held that the district court erred by failing to address Crompton’s argument that Mueller’s attorneys’ fees should be treated as part of the underlying debt, requiring a reallocation of Quick Fitting’s settlement proceeds to satisfy those fees before enforcing the guaranty against Crompton personally. Applying de novo review, the Sixth Circuit determined that the district court conflated two distinct legal questions—whether the fees were part of the secured debt subject to priority-based reallocation and whether Crompton was contractually liable for them—and bypassed the former without adequate analysis of choice-of-law issues or the interplay between the loan terms and receivership settlement. Consequently, the court vacated the award of attorneys’ fees and remanded the case for the district court to consider the reallocation argument in the first instance. The court affirmed the dismissal of Crompton’s breach of guaranty claim, ruling under Tennessee law that he failed to identify a specific contractual provision breached and could not recover damages because his incurred attorneys’ fees were not recoverable under the American Rule. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of Crompton’s tort claims for lack of standing, finding he abandoned the argument by failing to defend it at the district court, and affirmed the denial of sanctions against Mueller, concluding that Mueller’s litigation conduct was not meritless or brought for an improper purpose.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. (PLKI) and dismissal with prejudice of Nafeesa H. Naylor’s remaining claims against other defendants. Regarding PLKI, the court applied de novo review and held that summary judgment was proper because PLKI, as a franchisor that did not own or operate the restaurant at issue, is generally not liable for the acts of its franchisee’s employees or for securing the premises under Louisiana law. Naylor failed to provide evidence disputing this relationship or arguing otherwise. Regarding the dismissal with prejudice, the court reviewed for abuse of discretion and applied standards under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 41(b), which permit such sanctions for extreme circumstances involving deliberate, repeated refusals to comply with discovery orders or court directives. The court found Naylor’s conduct contumacious due to her failure to provide adequate discovery responses, appear for a court-ordered deposition despite denied continuance requests, and fail to attend a dispositive motions hearing. The court determined that lesser sanctions were futile given Naylor’s stubborn resistance to authority and repeated warnings from the district court. Additionally, the court rejected Naylor’s recusal and bias arguments, noting that adverse rulings alone do not establish judicial impartiality issues. The judgment of the district court is affirmed, leaving the dismissal with prejudice in effect.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The Fifth Circuit granted the appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal. The court applied the standard established in *Anders v. California* and *United States v. Flores*, concluding that after reviewing the record, counsel had identified no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review and the defendant had not filed a response. As a practical consequence, counsel was excused from further responsibilities in the case and the appeal was dismissed without prejudice to the defendant filing a pro se brief.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the cases to state court, holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the non-diverse defendant, Pennsylvania Hospital, was not fraudulently joined. The court established that under federal law and the precedent of *Poulos v. Naas Foods, Inc.*, fraudulent joinder is limited to two specific situations: where a plaintiff makes false allegations regarding jurisdictional facts, or where the plaintiff has no chance of success against the non-diverse defendant after resolving all factual and legal issues in the plaintiff’s favor. The court rejected the district court’s novel theory that fraudulent joinder could be found based on a plaintiff’s subjective intent or lack of good faith effort to prosecute the claim, noting that such an inquiry into litigation strategy and discovery activity is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent and the statutory framework governing diversity jurisdiction. Consequently, the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, requiring the district court to recognize the absence of complete diversity due to the presence of the non-diverse hospital defendant.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment upholding Leonard Higgins’ conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court held that Higgins’ constitutional challenges to the statute were foreclosed by binding circuit precedent, specifically citing United States v. Cunningham for the holding that § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional and United States v. Jackson for rejecting as-applied challenges to the same provision. As a result, the district court’s imposition of a 120-month prison sentence and three years of supervised release remains in effect.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The Fifth Circuit denied Olamide Bello’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his appeal as frivolous. The court determined that Bello’s § 2241 petition, which challenged trial and sentencing errors regarding wire fraud and money laundering convictions, must be construed as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because only the sentencing court in the Eastern District of Texas has jurisdiction over such motions, Bello was required to satisfy the saving clause of § 2255(e) by demonstrating that unusual circumstances made it impossible or impracticable to seek relief in the sentencing court. The court found that Bello failed to raise a non-frivolous argument supporting this showing. Additionally, the court rejected his contention that the district court should have transferred the proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, noting that because the dismissal was without prejudice, he may raise his challenges by filing a § 2255 motion in the proper district. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of a non-frivolous issue, and Bello was warned that future repetitive or frivolous filings may result in sanctions.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The seventh-circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the cases to state court, holding that the district court improperly expanded the doctrine of fraudulent joinder. The court stated that under established precedent and Supreme Court authority, fraudulent joinder is limited to two situations: where a plaintiff makes false allegations regarding jurisdictional facts, or where the plaintiff has no chance of success against the non-diverse defendant after resolving all facts and law in the plaintiff’s favor. The appellate court ruled that a plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate a real or good faith intent to pursue claims against a non-diverse defendant, based on litigation conduct such as delayed discovery or verbal representations regarding appeals, is not a valid basis for finding fraudulent joinder. Consequently, the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The fifth-circuit affirmed the district court’s 48-month sentence for illegal reentry into the United States. The court held that there was no plain error in the district court’s failure to adequately explain the sentence, noting the lengthy sentencing colloquy and fact-specific reasons provided for the variance. Additionally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an upward variance based on the defendant’s criminal history and the statutory goals of promoting respect for the law, providing just punishment, and affording adequate deterrence. The sentence was found to be well below the statutory maximum under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2).

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The seventh-circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the cases to state court, holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court ruled that the doctrine of fraudulent joinder cannot be established by a finding that a plaintiff failed to demonstrate a real or good faith intent to pursue claims against a non-diverse defendant through their litigation conduct, such as delayed discovery or perfunctory depositions. The court clarified that fraudulent joinder is limited to two specific situations: where the plaintiff has lied about jurisdictional facts, or where the plaintiff has no chance of success on the merits against the non-diverse defendant after resolving all issues of fact and law in the plaintiff’s favor. Because the district court relied on an impermissible inquiry into the plaintiffs’ subjective intent and litigation strategy rather than these established standards, its determination of fraudulent joinder was legally erroneous. The cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including consideration of whether removal is permissible under the forum-defendant rule for plaintiffs who are citizens of states other than Pennsylvania.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The sixth circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to revoke Christopher Clough’s supervised release for violating Tennessee’s sex-offender registration laws. The court held that the district court did not err in finding that Clough violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-203(a)(1) by failing to register a new primary residence within 48 hours after living at an apartment for two weeks, which satisfied the statutory definition of a primary residence requiring five consecutive days of residency under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-202(12). The court rejected Clough’s arguments that legal misunderstandings by the parties or insufficient evidence undermined the finding, ruling that any legal errors were harmless because the factual finding of two weeks of residency clearly established a violation regardless of the specific legal definitions discussed at the hearing. Applying a clear-error standard to the factual findings, the court determined that substantial evidence, including testimony from the apartment owner and corroborating physical evidence, supported the conclusion that Clough resided at the location for the requisite period and knowingly concealed his living arrangements in violation of his supervised release conditions. As a result, Clough’s supervised release remains revoked, and he must serve the additional prison term and supervised release imposed by the district court.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.