Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

Docket: 1:25-CV-01164-CMA-RTG)

The Tenth Circuit summarily affirmed the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiff Edward Hoid’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC) without prejudice and denying his motion to file a Third Amended Complaint (TAC). The court held that both pleadings failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.” The court applied a de novo standard of review to the district court’s decision, which had adopted a United States Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. The Magistrate Judge found the SAC to be 149 pages long, ending mid-sentence, and containing verbose, repetitive, and conclusory factual allegations that failed to clearly identify claims against specific defendants or establish a logical relationship for joinder among the 36 named parties. The district court determined the proposed TAC suffered from identical defects. The appellate court agreed with this assessment, noting the pleadings lacked clarity regarding which claims were asserted against each defendant and did not demonstrate entitlement to relief. As a practical consequence, the dismissal of the action without prejudice remains in effect, meaning the case is closed unless Plaintiff files a compliant pleading that satisfies Rule 8(a). The court also granted Hoid’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

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: 2026-07-23

Docket: 2:23-cv-01679-BJR

The ninth-circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Allied World Specialty Insurance Company on breach of contract, common law bad faith, and Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA) claims; vacated the summary judgment on the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA) claim; affirmed summary judgment on procedural-based bad faith and WCPA claims; and remanded for further proceedings. The court applied de novo review to the district court’s interpretation of the insurance policy under Washington law, which requires construing exclusions narrowly against the insurer and giving the insured the benefit of the doubt when coverage is conceivable. The court held that Allied breached its duty to defend because the underlying complaint contained allegations of sexual harassment (covered) that could be separated from allegations of sexual molestation or abuse (excluded). Under Washington law, an insurer must defend a claim if it is covered in whole or in part, and the policy’s “relating to” language did not preclude partial coverage. Because Allied denied defense despite a conceivable basis for coverage, its conduct was unreasonable as a matter of law, establishing liability for breach of contract, common law bad faith, and violation of the IFCA. Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to the remedy of coverage by estoppel. Regarding the WCPA claim, while the district court’s reasoning was flawed due to the reversal on the underlying contract claim, the record did not support partial summary judgment for Plaintiffs on WCPA liability elements; thus, that issue was remanded. Claims based solely on procedural violations were affirmed as dismissed because Plaintiffs failed to prove injury or damages required under Washington law and the IFCA does not create an independent cause of action for regulatory violations. On remand, the district court must grant partial summary judgment in favor of all Plaintiffs on liability for breach of contract, common law bad faith, and IFCA violations, determine appropriate damages, and conduct further proceedings regarding the WCPA claim. The court also instructed that costs be allocated against the Defendant-Appellee.

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 First Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-24

The first-circuit affirmed the District Court for the District of Puerto Rico’s dismissal of Reynaldo Cruz’s claims as moot. The court applied the well-settled rule that a party’s interest in recouping attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 does not create a sufficient stake in the outcome to resuscitate an otherwise moot controversy, even if Cruz qualified as a prevailing party against UIA. The practical consequence is that Cruz’s claims for declaratory relief, damages, and other remedies are dismissed without prejudice to his ability to seek attorneys’ fees through separate proceedings, as the underlying constitutional dispute was rendered moot by PRASA ceasing the deductions and UIA depositing the disputed funds with the court.

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