I posted last Wednesday about an opinion the Third Circuit issued that day in Hoffman v. Nordic Naturals. In Hoffman, the court held that a district court was permitted to bypass the question of whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction over a case when it dismissed the case with prejudice on claim-preclusion grounds. My post criticized the opinion’s reasoning and gave my view that the opinion warranted rehearing.
At the time I posted, I had no connection to the case. I first saw the opinion Wednesday afternoon after the court posted it on its website.
After I published my post, I was contacted by the attorney who was the losing party in the appeal (he had done the appeal pro se), and he has now retained me to seek rehearing in the case.
My readers are entitled to expect that, when I discuss a case I’m involved with, I disclose that, as I did for example here, and I will continue to do that. So I’m posting this explanation to make clear that I had no awareness of the case before the court posted its opinion and no connection to the case at the time of my original post.