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.

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 Washington Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA) claims, while affirming the dismissal of procedural-based claims and vacating the ruling on the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA) claim. The court held that under Washington law, an insurer breaches its duty to defend when a complaint contains allegations that could conceivably be covered, even if other allegations are excluded. Applying the rule that insurance exclusions must be construed narrowly against the insurer and ambiguities resolved in favor of coverage, the court determined that the policy’s “Sexual Abuse Exclusion” did not bar coverage for all allegations in the underlying complaint because the terms “sexual molestation” and “sexual abuse” require sexual contact or force, which were absent from some plaintiffs’ allegations (such as verbal harassment or non-contact strip searches). Consequently, the court found that partial coverage was conceivable, rendering Allied’s total denial of defense unreasonable. On remand, the district court is instructed to grant partial summary judgment against Allied on liability for breach of contract and the IFCA claim, and full summary judgment on the common law bad faith claim. The court further ordered that Plaintiffs be entitled to the remedy of coverage by estoppel due to the insurer’s bad faith denial. Regarding the WCPA claim, the case is vacated and remanded because the plaintiffs failed to meaningfully argue they satisfied the specific elements required for partial summary judgment on that statute. Claims based solely on alleged procedural violations were affirmed as dismissed because Plaintiffs presented no evidence of injury or because the IFCA does not create an independent cause of action for regulatory breaches.

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 denied the defendants’ motion to stay pending appeal a district court order and final judgment that vacated actions taken by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State to implement a presidential proclamation requiring a $100,000 payment with all H-1B visa petitions. The court applied the four-factor test from *Nken v. Holder* for emergency stays, focusing primarily on whether the defendants made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal. The court determined the defendants failed to meet this burden under the Administrative Procedure Act’s prohibition on agency actions taken in excess of statutory authority (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C)). Relying on *Skinner v. Mid-America Pipeline Co.*, the court held that Congress must clearly delegate authority for the executive to impose financial burdens characterized as fees or taxes. The court found that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and 1185(a) lacked the requisite clear statement authorizing such a payment, noting that Congress typically specifies fee imposition and fund usage explicitly in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Additionally, the court rejected the defendants’ argument that the implementation actions were not “final agency action” subject to judicial review, citing First Circuit precedent that agency actions carrying out presidential directives are ordinarily reviewable under the APA. The practical consequence is that the district court’s judgment vacating the $100,000 H-1B payment requirement remains in effect while the appeal proceeds. The defendants must continue to operate without the enforced policy until the First Circuit issues a final decision on the merits.

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 Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-23

Docket: 4:21-cv-00486-MW-MAF

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the estate’s civil rights action against federal prison officials, holding that no implied cause of action exists under *Bivens* for the claims brought. The court applied the two-step framework established by the Supreme Court in *Ziglar v. Abbasi* and *Egbert v. Boule*. First, the court determined that Carrin’s claims arose in a “new context” distinct from the three existing *Bivens* precedents (*Bivens*, *Davis*, and *Carlson*). While the Eighth Amendment claim involved medical care similar to *Carlson*, the factual context differed significantly because Carrin’s Hepatitis C condition progressed over a year requiring long-term treatment, whereas *Carlson* involved an acute asthma attack occurring over a single day. Second, the court found that the existence of the Bureau of Prisons’ Administrative Remedy Program (ARP) constituted a “special factor” counseling against the expansion of the *Bivens* remedy. Under current precedent, the mere presence of an alternative remedial structure designed to address constitutional violations in federal prisons is sufficient to preclude a *Bivens* suit, regardless of whether that alternative provides monetary damages or was actually utilized by the plaintiff before his death. Consequently, the estate’s claims for compensatory and punitive damages under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments were barred, and the case remains dismissed.

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: 8:24-cv-00227-SVW

The ninth-circuit dismissed the cross-appeals filed by Klein, Kimura London and White, LLP, and Todd Becker regarding the district court’s order remanding claims to state court, holding that under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), an order remanding a case to state court is not reviewable on appeal when based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or a procedural defect in removal. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment regarding the bankruptcy court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over “core” claims and ancillary claims, finding that the bankruptcy court properly exercised jurisdiction because the claims arose exclusively from the bankruptcy context and were covered by a stipulation retaining jurisdiction to effectuate its decree. Additionally, the court affirmed the imposition of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 against the appellants, ruling that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deeming their motion for rehearing frivolous given the clarity of the remand order. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions to carry out the remand order.

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 Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-24

Docket: 2:23-CV-00468-DBP)

The Tenth Circuit summarily affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff-Appellant Ian Cooperstein’s civil rights lawsuit against Salt Lake City police officers and municipal defendants. The court held that it could not proceed to the merits of Cooperstein’s Fourth Amendment claims because he failed to provide a sufficient appellate record. Specifically, Cooperstein omitted the motion-to-dismiss briefing and the body-camera footage that were central to the district court’s decision. Under the de novo standard of review applicable to Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals and qualified immunity determinations, the appellate court is obligated to independently evaluate the materials before the district court. Because the absence of these critical documents prevented the Tenth Circuit from conducting such review without resorting to guesswork, the judgment was affirmed. The dismissal with prejudice remains in effect.

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