Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

James Cooper was injured in a car accident in August 2019 while riding as a passenger in a car owned by Rick Huffman. Both Cooper and Huffman were employees of Pison Management, LLC, and were driving to a jobsite for work. Cooper's injuries exceeded the third-party driver's insurance limits, so he sought underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage under Pison's commercial automobile policy issued by Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Company. The policy provided $1 million in liability coverage for two vehicles owned by Pison and a class of non-owned vehicles but only offered UIM coverage for the owned vehicles. Erie denied Cooper's claim for UIM coverage.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of Cooper, holding that West Virginia Code § 33-6-31 required Erie to offer UIM coverage for all vehicles covered by the liability policy, including non-owned vehicles. The court issued a declaratory judgment that Cooper was entitled to $1 million in UIM coverage. Erie appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and certified a question of law to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. The West Virginia court concluded that West Virginia Code § 33-6-31 did not require Erie to offer UIM coverage for non-owned vehicles. The court determined that Cooper was not an "insured" under the statute because Pison, the named insured, did not own the vehicle in which Cooper was riding and thus could not consent to its use for UIM purposes.Applying the West Virginia court's interpretation, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment in favor of Cooper and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Erie. View "Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Company v. Cooper" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Kathleen Keaten and her daughter Delaney Keaten, lived in a Section 8 housing complex managed by the defendants, Terra Management Group, LLC, and Littleton Main Street LLC. They complained about physical ailments due to suspected methamphetamine fumes from the apartment below. The defendants evicted the tenant in the lower unit but failed to preserve evidence from the apartment. The Keatens later filed a lawsuit under the Colorado Premises Liability Act, alleging permanent injuries from the fumes.The Arapahoe County District Court held a bench trial and ruled in favor of the Keatens, awarding significant damages. The court found that the chemical fumes from the lower unit caused the Keatens' injuries, relying on expert testimony and meth residue levels. The court also drew an adverse inference against the defendants for failing to preserve evidence from the lower unit.The defendants appealed, and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that the defendants should have known about their potential liability and upheld the adverse inference sanction. The defendants then petitioned the Supreme Court of Colorado for certiorari review.The Supreme Court of Colorado held that a duty to preserve evidence arises when a party knows or should know that litigation is pending or reasonably foreseeable. The court concluded that any error in the trial court's adverse inference sanction was harmless because the causation finding was based on independent evidence. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "Terra Mgmt. Grp. v. Keaten" on Justia Law

Darren Markley sued his employer, US Bank, in federal court, alleging age discrimination under federal law and wrongful termination under Colorado state law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of US Bank on the federal claim and dismissed the state law claim without prejudice, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Markley did not appeal the dismissal of the state law claim or request the district court to reconsider it under diversity jurisdiction, despite knowing that diversity jurisdiction existed.Markley then filed his state law claim in the Denver District Court. US Bank removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and moved to dismiss the claim, arguing claim preclusion. The district court granted the motion, holding that Markley could have pursued his state law claim in the original federal lawsuit by asserting diversity jurisdiction. The court concluded that his failure to do so precluded him from bringing the claim in a new case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that claim preclusion applied because Markley could have litigated his state law claim in the prior federal lawsuit by asserting diversity jurisdiction. The court emphasized that a final judgment on the merits in the earlier action, which included the resolution of the federal claim, precluded Markley from bringing the state law claim in a new lawsuit. The court also found that the district court did not violate the party presentation principle by addressing the issue of diversity jurisdiction, as it was within the court's power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law. View "Markley v. U.S. Bank National Association" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between a nurse, the plaintiff, and her former employer, the defendant hospital. The plaintiff alleged that her termination was in retaliation for her complaints about safety issues. She brought five claims for relief, but only three statutory claims went to the jury: whistle-blower retaliation, unlawful retaliation, and unlawful employment practice. The jury found in favor of the defendant on the first two claims and in favor of the plaintiff on the third claim. The trial court entered a general judgment reflecting these verdicts.The defendant appealed the general judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in giving a "cat's paw" jury instruction, which allowed the jury to impute the bias of the plaintiff's coworkers to the defendant. The Court of Appeals agreed that the instruction was improper and reversed and remanded for a new trial. The trial court then vacated the general judgment and ordered a retrial of all three claims, including those on which the defendant had prevailed. The defendant appealed this order, but the Appellate Commissioner dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeals denied reconsideration.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reviewed the case to determine whether the trial court's order was appealable under ORS 19.205(3). The court concluded that, after the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the general judgment, there was no longer a general judgment in place. Therefore, the trial court's order determining the scope of the retrial was not an order made "after a general judgment" and was not immediately appealable under ORS 19.205(3). The orders of the Court of Appeals were affirmed. View "Crosbie v. Asante" on Justia Law

MCS Industries, Inc. (MCS), a shipper, filed a complaint with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) against MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. (Mediterranean), alleging violations of the Shipping Act of 1984. MCS claimed that Mediterranean failed to provide agreed cargo space, forced MCS to pay higher rates on the spot market during the Covid-19 pandemic, refused to deal with MCS, discriminated against shippers at certain ports, and engaged in unreasonable business practices. Mediterranean initially provided some discovery material but later refused further requests, citing jurisdictional issues and Swiss law restrictions on document production.The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ordered Mediterranean to comply with discovery requests, but Mediterranean continued to resist, arguing that the FMC lacked jurisdiction and that Swiss law precluded compliance. After multiple warnings and attempts to resolve the discovery issue, including a failed Hague Convention request, the ALJ issued a default judgment against Mediterranean, ordering it to pay reparations to MCS. The FMC affirmed the default judgment, remanding only to recalculate reparations and consider sanctions for delay.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the FMC had jurisdiction over the complaint, as the allegations involved violations of the Shipping Act, not merely breach of contract claims. The court also found that the FMC did not abuse its discretion in issuing a default judgment. The court noted that Mediterranean's refusal to comply with discovery orders prejudiced MCS, burdened the FMC, and undermined the authority of the Commission. The court denied Mediterranean's petitions for review, affirming the FMC's decision. View "MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. v. Federal Maritime Commission" on Justia Law

Carol Wagner, the plaintiff, claims entitlement to a surviving spousal share from the estate of John Chislett, her former husband. She seeks to rescind a quitclaim deed she granted to the decedent, alleging it was obtained through fraud. Additionally, she challenges the validity of a 1974 Dominican Republic divorce decree obtained by the decedent, asserting it is invalid under New Hampshire law. The defendants, Sally Chislett, Kevin Chislett, and Wai Kwan Chislett, contest her claims.The Circuit Court (Kissinger, J.) ruled against the plaintiff, determining that her rescission action was barred by the statute of limitations and that her challenge to the divorce decree was barred by laches due to her forty-seven-year delay in raising the issue. Consequently, the court dismissed her claims.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. The court upheld the lower court's decision, affirming that the statute of limitations for actions involving real property, RSA 508:2, applied to the plaintiff's rescission claim, which had expired. The court also agreed with the lower court's application of the doctrine of laches, finding that the plaintiff's delay in challenging the divorce decree was unreasonable and prejudicial to the defendants. The court noted that the plaintiff had remarried in reliance on the divorce decree and waited nearly five decades to contest its validity, during which time both her second husband and the decedent had died.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claims, concluding that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court's decision effectively barred the plaintiff from claiming a surviving spousal share from the decedent's estate. View "Wagner v. Chislett" on Justia Law

Bettie Leverette was shopping at a Walmart store in Conyers, Georgia, when two Walmart employees moving a 2,000-pound box on a pallet jack backed into her. Leverette initially reported no significant injury but later went to the hospital with head pain, blurred vision, and nausea. She was diagnosed with a mild traumatic brain injury and post-concussion syndrome. Leverette sued Walmart, claiming her symptoms were caused by the employees' negligence. At trial, Leverette's family and expert witnesses testified about her injuries and the projected costs of her future care, estimated between $2 million and $3.5 million. Walmart argued that Leverette's symptoms were due to pre-existing conditions and presented expert testimony to support this.The trial court gave a jury instruction on nominal damages at Walmart's request. Walmart suggested in closing arguments that nominal damages could be as low as $10 or as high as $500 but should not be $3 million. Leverette's counsel argued for over $5 million in damages. The jury awarded Leverette $1 million in nominal damages, leaving other damage categories blank. Walmart moved for a new trial, arguing the award was excessive, but the trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on precedent that nominal damages have no maximum limit.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case to determine if the $1 million award exceeded the limits on nominal damages under Georgia law. The court concluded that nominal damages, as adopted from English common law, are intended to be a trivial sum, important for the fact of the award but not meaningful in amount. The court overruled the Court of Appeals' precedent allowing large nominal damages and vacated the judgment. The case was remanded for the lower courts to resolve case-specific issues, including whether the error was invited by Walmart and the appropriate remedy. View "WALMART STORES EAST, LP v. LEVERETTE" on Justia Law

Roodson Fleureme alleged that he was injured when struck by a City of Atlanta vehicle driven by a city employee. Before filing a lawsuit, Fleureme sent several timely ante litem notices via Federal Express, including one addressed to "City of Atlanta Office of the Mayor" at the correct address of Atlanta City Hall. The notice inside the envelope was addressed to "City of Atlanta, Office of the Mayor" with the salutation "To Whom it May Concern." Fleureme later sued the City for negligence.The City moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Fleureme's ante litem notice did not comply with OCGA § 36-33-5 (f), which requires service on the mayor personally or by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, agreeing that the notice must be served on the mayor individually by name. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, reasoning that strict compliance with the service requirement was necessary and that the notice addressed to the "Office of the Mayor" did not meet this standard.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case to determine whether the statutory requirement to serve an ante litem notice on "the mayor" could be satisfied by mailing it to the correct address of the mayor's office, addressed to the "Office of the Mayor." The court held that such a notice does satisfy the service requirement. The court reasoned that the statute's purpose is to ensure that the governing authority of the municipality is aware of the claim, and addressing the notice to the office of the mayor at the correct address fulfills this purpose. The court also clarified that "strict compliance" with the statute does not necessitate a hyper-technical interpretation that would require the notice to be addressed to the mayor by name. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed, and the case was remanded. View "FLEUREME v. CITY OF ATLANTA" on Justia Law

An inmate at Rayburn Correctional Center in Louisiana, Torriana Clark, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials, alleging that Lt. Lance Wallace used excessive force against him, violating his constitutional rights. Clark claimed that after feeling sick and seeking medical help, he was forcibly restrained and assaulted by Wallace, resulting in injuries. The prison officials' reports contradicted Clark's account, stating that Clark was combative and resisted orders, necessitating the use of force to restrain him.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that Clark's § 1983 claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, which prevents prisoners from seeking damages under § 1983 if a judgment in their favor would imply the invalidity of their conviction or sentence. The district court also denied Clark's motion to amend his petition and remanded his state-law claims to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Clark's § 1983 claim was indeed barred by Heck because success on his claim would require proof of facts inconsistent with his disciplinary convictions, which resulted in the loss of good-time credits. The court also agreed with the district court's denial of Clark's motion to amend his petition, concluding that any amendment would be futile as it would not change the Heck analysis. The appellate court's decision upheld the partial summary judgment and the denial of the motion to amend. View "Clark v. Dept of Public Safety" on Justia Law

In the early hours of August 22, 1972, military officers at the Almirante Zar Naval Base in Trelew, Argentina, removed nineteen unarmed political prisoners from their cells and shot them, resulting in what became known as the Trelew Massacre. The plaintiffs in this case are the surviving family members of four of those prisoners. They filed a lawsuit against Roberto Guillermo Bravo, one of the officers involved in the massacre, seeking compensatory and punitive damages under the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) for the extrajudicial killing and torture of their relatives.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida heard the case. A jury found Mr. Bravo liable for the deaths and awarded the plaintiffs over $24 million. Mr. Bravo appealed, arguing that the district court erred by equitably tolling the TVPA statute of limitations on the plaintiffs’ claims until October 15, 2012. The district court had concluded that extraordinary circumstances, including the plaintiffs’ fear of reprisal, inability to locate Mr. Bravo, and inability to discover crucial evidence, justified tolling the statute of limitations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the district court’s judgment, finding that the district court failed to make sufficient findings of fact to support its ruling on equitable tolling. The appellate court remanded the case for additional findings on whether the plaintiffs were entitled to equitable tolling beyond March 2008. The court also instructed the district court to reconsider whether the plaintiffs acted with due diligence in filing their claims, particularly in the case of Eduardo Cappello, who was found not to have acted diligently by the district court. The appellate court upheld the district court’s exclusion of evidence regarding the victims' alleged ties to communism and Cuba, finding no abuse of discretion. View "Camps v. Bravo" on Justia Law