Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

Docket: 2:22-cv-05915-HDV-MAR

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting in part Menzies Aviation USA, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration and remanded for proceedings consistent with this disposition. The court held that Menzies waived its right to arbitrate because it engaged in intentional acts inconsistent with that right by actively litigating the merits of the case in federal court for 28 months before filing its motion to compel. Applying a de novo standard of review, the court determined that Menzies’ participation in extensive discovery, case management conferences, and a motion for partial summary judgment demonstrated an intention to take advantage of litigation rather than arbitration, thereby satisfying the waiver test under Ninth Circuit precedent. The court declined to review the district court’s denial of the motion to compel or its order granting class certification, noting it lacked jurisdiction over the latter and that the former was mooted by the waiver finding.

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 denied Socorro Perez-Hernandez’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), as well as his motion to terminate or remand proceedings. The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding that Perez-Hernandez failed to establish a nexus between the harm inflicted by his great uncle and a protected ground, as the violence stemmed from a personal intrafamilial land dispute rather than political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Additionally, the court found no likelihood of torture upon return to Guatemala, noting that his family had relocated within the country without further harm. The court also affirmed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, ruling that the police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Perez-Hernandez for littering and that he failed to demonstrate an egregious Fourth Amendment violation or a Fifth Amendment due process violation, as Miranda warnings are not required in civil removal proceedings. Finally, the court determined that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to terminate proceedings based on a defective Notice to Appear, as Perez-Hernandez forfeited the objection by failing to raise it before the Immigration Judge. The practical consequence is that Perez-Hernandez’s petition for review is denied and the order of removal stands.

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 Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The federal-circuit affirmed in part and dismissed in part the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The court affirmed the Veterans Court’s denial of Mr. Fritz’s motion to supplement his pleadings, holding that there is no constitutional right to effective counsel in veterans’ benefits appeals and that Mr. Fritz had adequate notice and opportunity to be heard through his initial pro se petition and subsequent amended petition with counsel. Regarding the mandamus petition, the court affirmed the Veterans Court’s grant of relief compelling the VA to adjudicate pending service connection claims for chronic fatigue syndrome and hyperacusis, and compelling the Board to decide a motion for reconsideration of an October 2022 decision. The court dismissed the remainder of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Mr. Fritz’s arguments constituted factual challenges to underlying benefits awards or disagreements with the application of law to specific facts, which are not reviewable under 38 U.S.C. § 7292. Additionally, the court dismissed as moot any challenge regarding the Board’s decision on a December 2018 motion for reconsideration, as that motion had since been denied. The practical consequence is that the Veterans Court’s order stands, and Mr. Fritz may pursue new grounds for mandamus relief through a fresh petition if applicable.

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 District of Columbia Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The dc-circuit denied petitions for review of EPA rules implementing “project emissions accounting” under the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review program. The court held that the rule is not contrary to law because it consistently applies the statutory definition of “modification” by allowing net calculations at both Step One and Step Two, and is not arbitrary or capricious because the EPA reasonably explained its decision to rely on existing recordkeeping requirements and non-binding guidance rather than adopting stricter binding restrictions on project aggregation. Consequently, the petitions are denied and the EPA’s rules remain 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 Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Cambria Company, LLC, dismissing Anthony Knight’s claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The court applied the *McDonnell Douglas* burden-shifting framework to evaluate Knight’s discrimination claim and a “same-decision” defense for his entitlement claim. Under this standard, while Knight established a prima facie case, Cambria articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating Knight—specifically, a reduction in force due to production slowdowns and the selection of Knight over a more senior employee. The court held that Knight failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that these reasons were pretextual or connected to his FMLA leave, noting that the six-week gap between his leave request and termination, combined with evidence of ongoing business justifications, undermined any inference of discriminatory animus. Consequently, Knight’s appeal was denied and the district court’s judgment was affirmed.

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 grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs’ federal antitrust claims were compulsory counterclaims that should have been raised in the initial arbitration proceeding. The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a), which requires a party to assert any claim arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party’s claim. The court determined that the antitrust cause of action accrued when Sears initiated the first arbitration to enforce the non-compete provision, as this filing constituted an overt act giving rise to the claim under established antitrust accrual principles. Consequently, the plaintiffs were required to bring their counterclaims during that initial proceeding rather than initiating a separate arbitration or lawsuit later. The court also rejected the argument that Malinda Goforth was exempt from this requirement because she was not a signatory to the original agreement, noting that the agreement explicitly extended its terms and arbitration provisions to spouses, and she could have asserted jurisdictional objections while simultaneously filing a compulsory counterclaim. As a result of the affirmation, the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims against the defendants are barred.

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 Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The federal-circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that it lacks authority to review the Veterans Court’s dismissal of the claimant’s challenge to a disability rating for headaches beginning September 7, 2018, because the Veterans Court applied the waiver rule to an issue not raised in the opening brief, which constitutes an application of law to fact rather than a reviewable question of law. Additionally, the court determined it could not review any alleged misinterpretation of statutes or regulations because the Veterans Court did not rely on or interpret 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 and 1131 or 38 C.F.R. § 4.20 in the portion of its decision relevant to the post-2018 rating period. The practical consequence is that the Veterans Court’s partial dismissal and remand order remain effective, leaving the claimant without appellate review on the waived issues.

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 Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

Docket: 2:22-cv-05915-HDV-MAR

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting in part Menzies Aviation USA, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that Menzies waived its right to arbitrate because it engaged in intentional acts inconsistent with that right by actively litigating the merits of the employment dispute in federal court for 28 months before filing its motion to compel. Applying a de novo standard of review, the court determined that Menzies’ participation in case management, discovery, depositions, and a motion for partial summary judgment demonstrated an intent to take advantage of litigation rather than arbitration, thereby satisfying the waiver test under Ninth Circuit precedent. The court declined to review the merits of the arbitration denial or the class certification order, noting it lacked jurisdiction over the latter.

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 Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The federal-circuit granted the government’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss Appeal No. 2026-1898, deconsolidating it from the other consolidated cases and dismissing the appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b)(2). The court ordered that each side bear its own costs regarding the dismissed appeal.

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 denial of Rasheem Bogan’s pretrial motions to dismiss his RICO conspiracy and felon-in-possession indictments. Regarding the RICO charge, the court held that the Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA) does not bar the use of a defendant’s juvenile conduct as a predicate act in an adult continuing-crime prosecution if the defendant ratified that participation through continued involvement in the conspiracy after reaching the age of majority. Applying de novo review, the court found Bogan’s post-majority ratification sufficient to carry the conspiracy into his adulthood, rendering the JDA inapplicable and rejecting his argument that *Roper v. Simmons* precluded such consideration. Regarding the felon-in-possession charge under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the court affirmed the denial of dismissal because the constitutional challenge was foreclosed by binding Eighth Circuit precedent, specifically *United States v. Jackson*. The practical consequence is that Bogan’s conviction and sentence stand.

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