CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
RICCY MABEL ENRIQUEZ-PERDOMO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RICARDO A. NEWMAN, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 20-6393 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
No. 3:18-cv-00549—Charles R. Simpson, III, District Judge.
Argued: July 22, 2021
Decided and Filed: December 5, 2022
Before: BATCHELDER, WHITE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Riccy Enriquez-Perdomo
appeals the district court’s dismissal of her claims against Defendants-Appellees United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers Ricardo Newman, Joseph Phelps, John
Korkin, and Shawn Byers (collectively, “Defendants”), brought under the First, Fourth, and Fifth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. The district court dismissed Enriquez-Perdomo’s
complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). We AFFIRM the
dismissal of Enriquez-Perdomo’s First Amendment retaliation claim, VACATE the judgment
with respect to her other claims, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
SHAINA M. KIRKLAND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF MARYVILLE, TENNESSEE,
Defendant-Appellee. |
No. 21-5569 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.
No. 3:19-cv-00312—Clifton Leland Corker, District Judge.
Argued: April 27, 2022
Decided and Filed: December 5, 2022
Before: GUY, THAPAR, and READLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Shaina Kirkland served as a patrol officer with the
City of Maryville’s police department. While in that role, Kirkland periodically used her
Facebook account to criticize the county sheriff. Kirkland’s supervisors became concerned that
her posts would undermine the Department’s relationship with their sister law enforcement
agency. So they asked her to stop. They also reprimanded her for other behavioral issues.
Matters came to a head following a Facebook post by Kirkland claiming the sheriff had
excluded her from a training event because she was female and opposed his reelection. At that
point, the City fired Kirkland. Kirkland responded by suing the City, alleging retaliation in
violation of the First Amendment, Title VII, and the Tennessee Human Rights Act. The district
court granted summary judgment in the City’s favor. We now affirm. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
IN RE: E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY C-8
PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION.
___________________________________________
TRAVIS ABBOTT; JULIE ABBOTT,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant. |
No. 21-3418 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
Nos. 2:13-md-02433; 2:17-cv-00998—Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., District Judge.
Argued: June 10, 2022
Decided and Filed: December 5, 2022
Before: BATCHELDER, STRANCH, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. In the 1950s, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
(DuPont) began discharging vast quantities of C-8—a “forever” chemical that accumulates in the
human body and the environment—into the Ohio River, landfills, and the air surrounding its
plant in West Virginia, contaminating the communities’ water sources. By the 1960s, DuPont
learned that C-8 is toxic to animals and, by the 1980s, that it is potentially a human carcinogen.
Despite these and other warnings, DuPont’s discharges increased between 1984 and 2000.
By the early 2000s, evidence confirmed that C-8 caused several diseases among the members of
the communities drinking the contaminated water, which led to a class action lawsuit against
DuPont. The parties undertook negotiations and ultimately entered into a unique settlement
agreement in which DuPont promised to carry out treatment of the affected water and to fund a
scientific process that would inform the class members and communities about the dangers of
and harms from C-8 exposure. In service of that process, the class voted to make receipt of the
cash award contingent on a full medical examination to test for and collect data on C-8 exposure.
A panel of scientists then conducted an approximately seven-year epidemiological study of the
blood samples and medical records of over 69,000 affected community members, during which
litigation against DuPont was paused. The parties’ agreement limited the legal claims that could
be brought against DuPont based on the study’s determination of which diseases prevalent in the
communities were likely linked to C-8 exposure. The resulting cases were consolidated in a
multidistrict litigation (MDL).
After two bellwether trials and a post-bellwether trial reached jury verdicts against
DuPont, the parties settled the remaining cases. That did not end all the C-8 litigation, as more
class members filed suit when they became sick or discovered the connection between their
diseases and C-8, including this case brought by Travis and Julie Abbott. At the Abbotts’ trial,
the district court applied collateral estoppel to specific issues that were unanimously resolved in
the three prior jury trials, excluded certain evidence from the trial based on the initial settlement
agreement, and rejected DuPont’s motion for a directed verdict on its statute-of-limitations
defense. The jury found for the Abbotts. On appeal, DuPont challenges those three district court
decisions. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court in full. |
|