Amarte USA Holdings, Inc. v. Kendo Holdings, Inc., et al. — 9th Cir. (Oct 21, 2026)

A traffic maneuver in Paducah, Kentucky, leads to a federal gun prosecution. In February 2021, Haynes drove to the right of a stopped car and then turned right at an intersection. An officer following him considered that improper lane use and pulled him over. The officer also wanted to investigate an encounter four months earlier, when a driver in a stolen car had fled from police. He believed Haynes was that driver. During the February stop, officers directed Haynes out of his car. Another officer saw a gun in the driver's door. Because Haynes had a prior felony conviction, the gun led to the federal charge at issue here. Haynes asked the district court to suppress the gun: to exclude it from evidence on the ground that police had obtained it through an unconstitutional stop. The judge denied that request. The judge concluded that the initial stop rested on an objectively reasonable interpretation of Kentucky traffic law, even if that interpretation might ultimately be mistaken. The appeal focuses on that initial decision to stop the car. Kentucky's rules distinguish passing on the right from driving off the roadway, and the parties disagree about how those rules fit this intersection and maneuver. Crossing a white line does not, by itself, answer which statute was violated. Haynes's lawyer will argue that the officer lacked a lawful basis for the stop and that the government cannot repair that gap with new theories developed afterward. The government will defend the stop under the traffic rules and the doctrine of reasonable mistakes of law. That doctrine does not mean any sincere misunderstanding is enough. The mistake must be objectively reasonable; careless study of the law gets no special protection. The lawyers will begin with those competing views.

The Sixth Circuit considers communication access during a hospital stay. In February 2023, Spencer, a deaf patient, was admitted to Union Hospital in Ohio and later transferred to Cleveland Clinic's main campus, where she underwent surgery. Her chart said she needed an American Sign Language interpreter. The hospitals used video remote interpreting, or VRI: a video connection to a sign language interpreter. But some attempts were unsuccessful, and staff also communicated through written notes and phone-based speech-to-text. Spencer says communication failures left her without full access to medical information and left family members filling gaps. She and her two daughters sued. The district judge ruled for the hospitals on the federal claim under the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits disability discrimination in covered health programs. The judge considered the interpreting services and alternative methods together, and relied on Spencer's testimony about understanding her procedure. The appeal concerns communication rights, not an allegation that the surgery was performed incorrectly. The ruling was summary judgment, a decision without trial when no genuine dispute over an outcome-relevant fact remains and the law entitles one side to win. Here, the question is whether the record allowed that decision or required a trial. A judge cannot simply choose between competing versions of a genuinely disputed material fact. The family will argue that important medical conversations were not effectively accessible, regardless of the eventual medical outcome. The hospitals will point to completed interpreting calls and testimony that Spencer understood her care. The judges will also press counsel on the daughters' separate communication claims and whether those claims were addressed. Another question is what showing of intentional discrimination is required for nominal damages: a small award recognizing a proven legal violation rather than compensating a demonstrated loss. Seeking that award does not by itself establish a right to it. Andrew Rozynski will present the family's appeal first.

The Sixth Circuit returns to a dispute over Harry Calcutt the Third, a former chief executive of Northwestern Bank in Michigan. During the Great Recession, the bank's largest group of borrowers stopped making loan payments. A restructuring called the Bedrock Transaction provided funds to bring their loans current. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation found that Calcutt approved unsafe transactions and concealed the troubled relationship from the bank's board and regulators. Calcutt contests the agency's case. In 2023, the Supreme Court reversed an earlier Sixth Circuit judgment. After identifying errors in the agency's reasoning, the appeals court should have sent the case back rather than supplying its own justification for the sanctions. That was not a ruling clearing Calcutt of misconduct. The FDIC reconsidered the matter and again imposed a banking prohibition and a civil penalty of one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars. Calcutt now challenges that renewed decision. The court first examines whether his constitutional objections can be considered now. A limited remand restricts what may be reopened when a case is sent back. Appellate forfeiture concerns an argument not raised in an earlier appeal. The parties dispute both the scope of the remand and the consequences of Calcutt's earlier briefing. The constitutional questions concern a federal judge under Article Three and a civil jury under the Seventh Amendment. The public-rights exception permits Congress to assign certain matters to agencies instead. Calcutt will argue that this case concerns traditional private duties that require court adjudication. The FDIC will defend its administrative process as part of protecting the federally insured banking system. There is also a dispute over proximate cause: whether the alleged misconduct is sufficiently connected to the bank's losses, rather than merely preceding them. Calcutt will question whether the agency showed the bank would have been better off without the transaction. The FDIC will defend its findings. Amy Saharia of Williams and Connolly will present Calcutt's challenge first.

The Fifth Circuit reviews a contested settlement over Charles Schwab's acquisition of TD Ameritrade. Individual investors claimed the merger reduced competition in the market for retail customer orders. Their complaint was not simply that stock prices fell. It was that reduced competition left customers with less favorable trading prices and rebates. The business model matters. Brokers can receive payments from market makers for routing customers' buy and sell orders to them. That is payment for order flow. The investors claimed that, after the merger, less of the benefit reached customers. The Clayton Act prohibits acquisitions whose effect may substantially lessen competition; these allegations were not a trial finding that Schwab violated that law. After discovery and mediation, the parties agreed to a settlement covering roughly twenty-five million current brokerage customers. It calls for an antitrust compliance program designed with a consultant, rather than breaking up the merged business. Ordinary class members receive no cash distribution. The named plaintiffs receive separate payments. Members were not given an option to opt out of this mandatory class. The district judge approved the settlement and eight and a quarter million dollars in attorney's fees, payable by Schwab. The objectors challenging approval include Iowa and a customer representing himself. They will question the program's uncertain benefits, the fees, and the effect on customers' ability to pursue damages together. The original plaintiffs and Schwab will defend the agreement as a valuable compromise and emphasize that absent class members' individual damages claims are not released. Formal preservation of those claims and the practical ability to pursue them are different issues in this argument. The court first turns to standing: the required legal stake in federal litigation, involving a concrete injury traceable to the challenged conduct that the requested relief can redress. It will examine Iowa's ability to appeal and the named customers' ability to seek prospective relief. The Class Action Fairness Act requires notice to appropriate government officials; how that bears on Iowa's participation is disputed. For the fee discussion, a lodestar calculation starts with reasonable hours multiplied by reasonable hourly rates. The dispute includes whether the judge properly assessed the results obtained, not just the lawyers' time. Eric Wessan will present Iowa's challenge first.

A bakery that won part of its lawsuit is asking the Ninth Circuit for another chance to recover more. Bon Appetit bought three custom packaging systems from Delta Systems and Automation. The equipment was intended to automate wrapping its baked goods. After unsuccessful testing of the donut system and delays in the project, Bon Appetit canceled the contracts and sued. The other two systems had not reached the same stage of testing. The result in the federal district court was mixed. Bon Appetit won its breach of contract claim over the donut system and defeated Delta's counterclaims. But the judgment favored Delta on fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, and on Bon Appetit's contract claims over the other two systems. A win on one machine therefore did not establish a right to recover on all three. Much of this argument concerns summary judgment. That resolves a claim without trial when there is no genuine dispute about facts that matter to the result and the law entitles one side to win. The judge is not supposed to choose between competing accounts when the evidence presents a genuine issue for a jury. One dispute concerns Delta's assurances about improved technology. Were those actionable misrepresentations, or optimistic statements about what its equipment could do? Another concerns validation: checking Bon Appetit's products and operation before completing the machines. What did the contracts require, and what loss followed if Delta failed to do it? Those questions are distinct from assuming that every machine would have failed because the donut system did. Bon Appetit will contend that the judge took disputed questions away from the jury and restricted its recovery. Delta will contend that the bakery presented insufficient evidence to send those claims to trial. The court will also examine how the jury's answers on Delta's counterclaims fit together. Those answers should not be confused with a verdict granting Bon Appetit all the damages it sought.