Jurisdiction

We have routinely highlighted the proliferation of wiretapping class actions, and the variety of approaches courts have taken to address them.  One common pitfall for plaintiffs in these types of cases is standing, an issue highlighted in a recent Third Circuit case throwing out a proposed federal class action against Harriet Carter Gifts and NaviStone Inc., and remanding it to state court.  

The case, Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts, Inc., No. 25-1760 (3d. Cir. 2026), involved plaintiff’s allegations that Harriet Carter Gifts and NaviStone tracked her browsing activity on Harriet Carter’s website while she shopped for pet stairs, purportedly in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act.  After removal, the district court twice granted summary judgment for the defendants, and both decisions were appealed to the Third Circuit. 

Continue Reading Stand Aside:  Third Circuit Throws Out Harriet Carter Gifts Federal Wiretapping Case On Standing Grounds

The Sixth Circuit recently reversed a denial of a motion to compel arbitration in an MDL, where the district court had raised the issue of waiver of arbitration rights on its own and ruled defendant had waived the right even when there was no evidence it had knowledge of the right.  In Re Chrysler Pacifica Fire Recall Products Liability Litigation, — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 1904525 (6th Cir. Jul. 10, 2025).

Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Enforces Arbitration Agreement After Lower Court Sua Sponte Found Waiver

After removing a lawsuit brought against it in Pennsylvania state court under the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (“WESCA”) to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Prime Hydration LLC argued in its motion to dismiss that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing.  Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro agreed and remanded the case to state court.  Heaven v. Prime Hydration LLC, 2025 WL 42964, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2025).

Plaintiff Shantay Heaven filed a putative class action in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas asserting that Prime Hydration allowed third parties to track the activity of visitors to Prime Hydration’s website.  Id. at *1.  Plaintiff asserted that Prime Hydration integrated the third-party pixels into its website.  Id. at *2.  Those two pieces of code, Plaintiff alleged, allowed Prime Hydration to capture “her searches for drink flavors, . . . and that this information was transmitted to” the third-party servers.  Id. at *6.

Continue Reading Pennsylvania District Court Judge Remands Case After Finding No Article III Standing to Bring Wiretapping Claim

The Supreme Court recently held in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger that even if a defendant properly removes a complaint from state to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s post-removal amendment of the complaint to eliminate the basis for federal question jurisdiction will also deprive the…

Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds That Post-Removal Amendment of Complaint Can Destroy Federal Jurisdiction