Gad v Kansas State University

Gad sued University alleging sex, religion and national origin discrimination. University moved for summary judgment arguing in part that Gad had failed to sign a required form and thus failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. The district court granted summary judgment. The panel reversed and remanded. It noted that the case law established several principles to guide the analysis here including administrative perquisites go to subject matter jurisdiction if it is in the jurisdictional section of title VII, courts should be careful to avoid inadvertent forfeiture of rights, verification protects employers from frivolous claims and failure to verify is not fatal. Applying here, it held that Gad’s failure to verify her claim did not strip the district court of subject matter jurisdiction because the verification provision is not in the jurisdictional section, holding otherwise would lead to inadvertent forfeitures, employers can raise the lack of verification as a defense and failure to verify is not fatal. The panel held that 10th Circuit precedent holding that other prerequisites are jurisdictional cannot be squared with current Supreme Court precedent and thus must be abandoned now.  The case was remanded to analyze whether University waived its exhaustion defense.

United States v Esquivel-Rios

Esquivel-Rios appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The panel affirmed. Assuming a violation occurred when a Kansas officer relied on a Colorado database which usually returned no information on temporary tags, suppression was inappropriate because the officer did not act culpably in relying on the database as he was not on notice that the information about temporary tags was not in the database and the Colorado agency did not recklessly fail to update the information; it merely had not been provided with it by another agency.

Klein v Cornelius

Klein, as receiver for a commodities firm which ran a Ponzi scheme, sued Cornelius for return of legal fees paid by the firm. The district court granted summary judgment to Klein. The panel affirmed. It held this suit , based on Utah law, was authorized under the Commodity exchange Act as ancillary to Klein’s appointment; Klein had standing because the firm was a defrauded creditor and was an association that could sue or be sued under Utah law; and the district court had personal jurisdiction over Cornelius because nationwide service of process was authored under the Act and Cornelius failed to provide any evidence or argument that litigating in Utah would unconstitutionally inconvenience him. On the merits, the panel held that transfers from the firm were per se from an insolvent entity and thus all transfers were presumptively fraudulent and the fees here were paid to defend a friend of the firm’s officers which provided o benefit whatever to the firm. Thus, Klein was entitled to the fees. The panel finally rejected Cornelius’ statue of limitations argument noting that Klein had no notice of the fees until he was appointed receiver, the statute was tolled until that pint as the firm was controlled by fraudsters and the suit was brought within one year of the appointment and earliest possible moment of discovery.