Julio M. Fuentes

• Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. v. Township of Mount Holly

  Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2011-09-13 · cited 68×

  The case involved a challenge by low-income, predominantly minority residents of the Gardens neighborhood in Mount Holly Township, New Jersey, to the Township's redevelopment plan, which called for demolishing their existing affordable homes and replacing them with higher-cost housing. The residents alleged that the plan had a discriminatory disparate impact and reflected intentional discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act and other anti-discrimination laws. The district court granted summary judgment to the Township before discovery or an answer. The Third Circuit reversed in part, holding that the district court misapplied the standards for a prima facie disparate-impact claim under the FHA and failed to draw reasonable inferences in the residents' favor, as the record raised genuine factual issues about whether less discriminatory alternatives, such as rehabilitation, were feasible. The court affirmed the dismissal of the intentional-discrimination claim but remanded the case for further proceedings.

  civil rightspropertyprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (6,405 words)

• Leyva v. Williams

  Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007-10-03 · cited 209×

  The case involved Armando Leyva's federal habeas petition challenging his state convictions for statutory sexual assault and corruption of a minor, based on claims that his trial counsel was ineffective due to a conflict of interest from prior representation of a related party and for failing to withdraw to testify about an alleged bribe offer from the victim's mother to drop charges. Pennsylvania state courts denied review of some claims for lack of affidavits showing witnesses were available to testify and dismissed others after Leyva was released from custody under the PCRA. The District Court dismissed the habeas petition on procedural default grounds. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that the state procedural rules at issue were not firmly established and consistently applied, so they did not bar federal review.

  criminal lawprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (6,056 words)

• Ruehl v. Viacom, Inc.

  Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007-09-17 · cited 169×

  This case involves James Ruehl's age discrimination claim against Viacom under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), stemming from his 1998 termination after 24 years of employment. Ruehl did not file a timely charge with the EEOC but instead opted into a collective ADEA action filed by other former employees; after that action was decertified in December 2002, he filed his own EEOC charge in October 2003 and sued in January 2004. The district court denied Viacom's summary judgment motion, finding the late filing excused by equitable tolling due to an invalid release or by the single filing rule based on the earlier collective action. On interlocutory appeal, the Third Circuit reversed, holding that Ruehl's administrative remedies were not timely exhausted because the single filing rule did not extend the deadline after decertification and equitable tolling did not apply. The court remanded for entry of judgment in Viacom's favor.

  labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (7,330 words)

• In Re Moran Towing Corp.

  Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007-08-07 · cited 2×

  This case involved a collision between the John Turecamo tugboat, operated by Moran Towing Corporation, and the Astro Libra tanker during docking in Philadelphia, resulting in damage to both vessels. The tanker's owners sued Moran for damages, and Moran filed an admiralty action seeking exoneration or limitation of liability under the Limitation of Shipowners Liability Act while counterclaiming for its own damages. Following a bench trial, the district court found that the collision was caused solely by the negligence of the Astro Libra's pilots (who were independent contractors, not Moran employees), that Moran employees and the tug acted without negligence, and that the claimants were liable for damage to the tug; it exonerated Moran and scheduled a damages hearing. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous, including that the docking pilot was a borrowed servant under the ship's control and that the tug's maneuvers did not constitute negligence.

  torts & liabilityprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (1,495 words)

Affiliations