Appeals Court Revives Temu Suit Against Gluck
Third Circuit vacates dismissal and orders the lower court to first decide personal jurisdiction.
Updated on Nov. 10, 2026 in Criminal Justice
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a District of Massachusetts judge's dismissal of Whaleco Inc.'s complaint against intellectual-property lawyer Jeffrey Gluck and others. The appeals court ordered the district judge, on remand, to first rule on the personal-jurisdiction motions.
Why it matters
A court must establish its jurisdiction before ruling on the merits of a case, so the dismissal on the merits was procedurally premature. The decision keeps Temu's allegations that Gluck lied to secure a settlement alive and returns the threshold question to the lower court.
The appellate court's 15-page opinion vacated the district court's orders and judgment, sending the matter back for a ruling on personal jurisdiction. Whether Gluck and Cookies SF are subject to the court's jurisdiction has not been decided, and attorney fee and Rule 11 sanctions questions remain open.
The players
Whaleco Inc. (Temu)
Whaleco Inc., which does business as Temu, is an online shopping platform that brought the complaint against Gluck and his clients.
Jeffrey Gluck
Jeffrey Gluck is an intellectual-property lawyer and sole owner of Gluck Law Firm, P.C., who is accused of lying to secure a settlement.
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals is the federal appellate court that vacated the District of Massachusetts dismissal and ordered a ruling on personal jurisdiction first.
The details
Temu alleges Gluck lied to obtain a settlement of legal claims that his clients Cookies SF and Alec Monopoly had previously brought against the company. Gluck, Cookies SF, and Alec Monopoly moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and Gluck and Cookies SF also moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, while Gluck sought sanctions for frivolous litigation. The district judge dismissed on the merits without deciding the jurisdictional motions and found Cookies SF and Alec Monopoly entitled to attorney fees under their agreements.
Timeline
October 19, 2026: Appeal briefing and an amicus submission were noted in the case record.
November 9, 2026: The appeals court decision was published.
Legal Context
The ruling applies the familiar rule that a federal court must confirm personal jurisdiction before deciding the merits, a sequence the district court did not follow. Because Rule 12(b)(2) motions are threshold issues, the decision reinforces that procedural order in federal civil litigation.
For businesses and individuals facing lawsuits from out-of-state parties, the ruling shows that jurisdictional challenges must be resolved before the merits are reached. The outcome will determine whether the claims against Gluck and Cookies SF proceed in Massachusetts at all.
The takeaway
A court must resolve whether it has authority over the parties before it can decide who wins, and litigants should expect jurisdictional questions to come first. Anyone involved in multi-state disputes should track threshold rulings closely, since they can reset a case's entire timeline.
What happens next
On remand, the District of Massachusetts must first decide the personal-jurisdiction motions before any further ruling on the merits, fees, or sanctions.
Further reading
For more on how courts handle these procedural disputes, explore the Criminal Justice section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
