Salvatora v. XTO Energy, Inc., Case No. 25-1327 (3d Cir. 2026).
A defendant does not impliedly waive its right to compel arbitration against unnamed Rule 23(b)(3) class members who have arbitration clauses by litigating before class certification, participating in class discovery or mediation, opposing certification while expressly reserving arbitration rights, and moving to compel within a reasonably prompt time after class membership is finalized.
Rummans v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Case No. 25-10897 (5th Cir. 2026).
Circumstantial business record evidence and testimony establishing customary mailing practices are sufficient to invoke the mailbox rule’s presumption of receipt, and a borrower’s uncorroborated denial of receipt does not rebut that presumption.
Black v. UniBank (S.E.C. v. Hill), Case No. 25-50986 (5th Cir. 2026).
A receivership distribution order that impairs a nonparty creditor’s asserted lien priority must satisfy due process with sufficient factual and legal analysis, and a conclusory adoption of a receiver’s recommendation is inadequate.
Emmerich Newspapers, Inc. v. Particle Media, Inc., Case No. 25-60550 (5th Cir. 2026).
Framed linking that retrieves and shows publisher content directly from the publisher’s server does not violate the Copyright Act’s public-display right, and URLs are not categorically excluded from copyright management information under the DMCA if they clearly convey the statutorily required identifying characteristics.
O’Connor v. Eubanks, Case No. 25-2104 (6th Cir. 2026).
The original owner of property covered by Michigan’s Uniform Unclaimed Property Act retains ownership of the presumptively abandoned property and the interest generated from it while the state holds the property in custody, so a due process analysis cannot rest on the premise that the state acquired ownership upon taking custody.
Williams v. Mastronardi Produce-USA, Inc., Case No. 25-1836 (6th Cir. 2026).
A wholly owned subsidiary is not bound by claim preclusion based merely on a close parent-subsidiary relationship because nonparty preclusion must fit within one of the recognized Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 891 (2008), exceptions rather than a free-floating privity standard.
Sima v. Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, Case No. 25-1729 (7th Cir. 2026).
A legal malpractice claim based on an attorney’s alleged conflict of interest fails absent adequate pleading that the attorney’s conduct caused cognizable harm to the client’s underlying claims.
Metroplex Communications, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 24-1440 (7th Cir. 2026).
A broad arbitration clause governing claims arising out of or relating to a party’s commercial access to or use of Meta products does not require arbitration of unfair-competition claims based on Meta’s alleged public misrepresentations about advertising reach when the claimant asserts injury as a market competitor rather than from Meta’s performance under the advertising agreement.
Cabardo v. Patacsil, Case No. 25-342 (9th Cir. 2026).
An order in a bankruptcy dischargeability proceeding is not final and appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1) when it resolves only one asserted exception to discharge and remands for trial on another exception.
