Mar 30 2026
9th Cir. 2:24-cv-00112-DJC-AC Unpublished

JOHN R. MARSHALL; THE JOHN MARSHALL IRREVOCABLE TRUST DTD FEBRUARY 14, 2017, through its trustee, Michael A. Marshall v. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration because the record contains a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the formation of a valid agreement under California contract law. The appellate court held that unresolved factual issues concerning fraud and execution require resolution before arbitration can be ordered.

Mar 27 2026
11th Cir. 1:23-cv-00309-MU Per Curiam

KEITH COOPER v. AIRBUS AMERICAS, INC

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Airbus, ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove race discrimination or retaliation under Title VII and Section 1981. The court held that the employer's reasons for termination were legitimate and that the plaintiff could not demonstrate that similarly situated employees outside his protected class were treated more favorably.

Mar 27 2026
5th Cir. 25-60244 Per Curiam

Cordova-Almendares v. Bondi

The Fifth Circuit denied asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection to a Honduran petitioner whose claim relied on a single incident of threats. The court held that the isolated nature of the incident and the lack of immediacy failed to establish the sustained pattern required for past persecution or a well-founded fear of future harm.

Mar 27 2026
5th Cir. 24-60055 Panel Decision

Arnesen v. Lutnick

The Fifth Circuit held that members of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council are officers under the Appointments Clause due to their veto power over the Secretary of Commerce. The court severed the unconstitutional veto authority and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the government.

Mar 27 2026
1st Cir. 25-1359 Panel Decision

Holland v. Elevance Health, Inc.

The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a disability discrimination claim against a health insurer that excluded coverage for weight-loss medications. The court held that the exclusion was facially neutral and that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts showing the policy was motivated by animus toward obesity or that it constituted proxy or disparate impact discrimination.