Mar 4 2026
3rd Cir. 25-1051 Panel Decision

SAT Agiyar, LLC v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for 7-Eleven in a franchise dispute, ruling that the franchisor had valid grounds to rescind the agreement due to the franchisee's failure to maintain required net worth and operate as a 24-hour store. The court further held that 7-Eleven's refusal to permanently waive penalty fees did not violate the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Feb 26 2026
4th Cir. 25-2253 Per Curiam

EFREN GARCIA URRUTIA v. FRANCIS DIOSMAR ARENA FLORES

The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded a district court order denying a petition for the return of a child under the Hague Convention. The appellate court found that the lower court applied the wrong law to determine custody rights and lacked evidentiary support for its findings on affirmative defenses.

Feb 26 2026
3rd Cir. 25-1338 Panel Decision

THOMAS LAMONT DYNO; JULIA DYNO v. ALBERT DYNO, JR., in his official and personal capacity as Executor of the Estate of Rosemarie Sterchak, deceased

The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of motions to reopen a case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d) and to amend a complaint post-judgment. The court held that the appellants failed to prove fraud directed at the federal court itself, which is required to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(d).

Feb 13 2026
7th Cir. 25-1796 Panel Decision

Justin Mahwikizi v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC

The Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court's dismissal of a plaintiff's lawsuit for failure to prosecute after he refused to comply with an order compelling arbitration. The court held that the interlocutory order to arbitrate did not merge into the final dismissal, leaving the appellate court without jurisdiction to review the arbitration ruling.

Feb 9 2026
9th Cir. 2:21-cv-01229-KKE Unpublished

DAISAKU SUZUKI; KAZUYA OMOTO v. MARINEPOLIS USA, INC., an Oregon corporation; MARINEPOLIS CO LTD, a Japanese corporation; MITSUYOSHI INOHARA, an individual; ICHIRO MACHIDA, an i...

The Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's denial of a motion to vacate a dismissal order, ruling that the lower court retained jurisdiction to consider the motion despite lacking authority to directly enforce the settlement. The appellate court directed the district court to grant the motion based on the defendants' bad faith conduct that frustrated the settlement agreement.

Feb 2 2026
4th Cir. 24-2006 Per Curiam

DREAMWORKS MOTORSPORTS, INC v. JONATHAN KLEIN

The Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's remand of a contract dispute to state court because the defendant removed the case after the one-year statutory deadline had expired. The court held that the plaintiff's strategic delay in scheduling a hearing on a motion to amend the complaint did not constitute bad faith sufficient to excuse the untimely removal.

Jan 27 2026
United States Court… 25-7006 Panel Decision

Basavaraj Hooli v. Larry Mitcham, Administrator, Zebulon City

The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the appellant's complaint, ruling that the appellant forfeited challenges to personal jurisdiction and venue by failing to properly raise them in his opening brief. The court also denied the motion for appointment of counsel and dismissed the motion to compel as moot.

Jan 2 2026
United States Court… 24-7137 Panel Decision

Kuratu v. Carmart Dealership and Credit Acceptance Corporation

The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's orders compelling arbitration and dismissing the case because the appellant failed to preserve arguments against arbitration. The court further held that dismissal was proper since the appellant did not request a stay of proceedings or justify maintaining the initial stay after neglecting to initiate arbitration.

Dec 29 2025
United States Court… 25-7133 Panel Decision

Artemus Eden v. Station Townhouses LLC

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction and remanded the case to state court. The panel found that the defendants failed to allege facts establishing complete diversity of citizenship required for federal jurisdiction.