Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff William Glickman filed a motion to apportion discovery referee fees to the defendants, Charles S. Krolikowski and Newmeyer & Dillion LLP, due to their incomplete and insufficient discovery responses. The discovery referee recommended that the defendants pay all of the $22,750 in referee fees incurred on recent discovery motions, plus $1,750 for the apportionment motion itself. The trial court overruled the defendants' objections to this recommendation.The defendants appealed the trial court's order, arguing that the unequal allocation of fees was tantamount to monetary sanctions and should be appealable under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(12). They contended that the referee's allocation of fees based on their conduct in causing the fees to be incurred should be treated as a monetary sanction.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the appeal. The court held that an order allocating discovery referee fees is not a sanctions order, even if the fees are allocated based on the referee's perception of the parties' conduct. The court noted that the referee's recommendation did not use the word "sanctions" or cite any legal authority for imposing sanctions. Instead, the recommendation relied on the discretion provided in the court's reference order, which was stipulated to by the parties.The court concluded that the order could not be classified as a "monetary sanction" for purposes of establishing appealability. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that parties must either wait for entry of judgment to appeal this kind of order or file a timely writ petition. The court also rejected the notion that the order could be appealed under the collateral order doctrine, as the payment of discovery referee costs may be reallocated at the end of the lawsuit. View "Glickman v. Krolikowski" on Justia Law

Misty Coleman alleges that she fell and broke her ankle after slipping on a wet shower floor in a county jail. She pursued constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and negligence claims under Ohio law against the county, corrections officers, and medical personnel. Coleman claimed that the slippery shower violated the Due Process Clause and that a county policy or custom was behind her poor medical care. She also questioned whether the county could invoke state-law immunity from her negligence claim at the pleading stage.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed all claims against all parties. The court found that Coleman failed to allege a plausible constitutional violation regarding the slippery shower and did not connect the inadequate medical care to a county policy or custom. The court also held that Ohio law granted immunity to Hamilton County on the negligence claim. The court allowed Coleman to conduct limited discovery to identify unnamed officers and nurses, but her subsequent amended complaint was dismissed as it was filed outside the statute of limitations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court's dismissal, holding that Coleman’s claims accrued on the date of her accident and that her amended complaint did not relate back to the original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The court also found that Coleman did not meet the requirements for equitable tolling, as she did not allege facts showing that she was intentionally misled or tricked into missing the deadline. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Coleman’s complaint. View "Coleman v. Hamilton County Bd. of County Commissioners" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Tiffaney Whitt, on behalf of her minor children, and Jeremiah Parker, Whitt’s adult son, filed a lawsuit against Kearney School District and Durham School Services, L.P., due to racial harassment experienced by Parker and his siblings on a school bus operated by Durham. Plaintiffs alleged a 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim against Durham, asserting they were third-party beneficiaries of the contract between Kearney and Durham, which required safe, harassment-free transportation.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied Durham’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, which challenged the validity of Plaintiffs’ § 1981 claim. Durham then filed a motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in its contract with Kearney. The district court denied this motion, concluding that Durham waived its right to enforce the arbitration clause by not raising it earlier in the litigation. Durham appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Durham knew of its right to arbitrate, as it possessed the contract containing the arbitration clause, and acted inconsistently with that right by engaging in extensive litigation and discovery before filing the motion to compel arbitration. The court also noted that the district court’s consideration of prejudice to Plaintiffs, although erroneous, did not affect the substantial rights of the parties. The appellate court rejected Durham’s argument that it could not have known to seek arbitration until the district court’s summary judgment ruling and found that Durham’s actions were inconsistent with preserving its right to arbitrate. The court also denied Plaintiffs’ request to adopt a process for certifying interlocutory appeals as frivolous and their request for costs under Fed. R. App. P. 38. View "Parker v. Durham School Services, L.P." on Justia Law

Diego Penaranda Arevalo, a citizen of Ecuador unlawfully present in the United States, sought cancellation of a removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). An immigration judge denied his application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Penaranda then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for review. While this petition was pending, Penaranda filed a motion with the BIA to terminate or remand his removal proceedings, arguing that his removal order was invalid because his original notice to appear did not include the date and time of his initial hearing, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). The BIA denied the motion, reasoning that Penaranda had forfeited any objection based on the time-and-place requirement by failing to raise it in a timely manner.The Second Circuit reviewed both cases together. The court reaffirmed its decision in Banegas Gomez v. Barr that the time-and-place requirement is a non-jurisdictional rule and held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Penaranda forfeited his objection. Therefore, the court denied that petition.In his first petition, Penaranda challenged the immigration judge’s finding that he gave false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit, which led to the conclusion that he failed to establish good moral character and was therefore ineligible for the requested relief. The Second Circuit found that it lacked jurisdiction to review Penaranda’s petition insofar as it contested whether and why he testified falsely, as these are unreviewable questions of fact under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Penaranda also argued that the immigration judge held him to a higher burden of proof than required. The court found that this argument, while a question of law, failed on the merits. Accordingly, the court dismissed in part and denied in part Penaranda’s first petition. View "Penaranda Arevalo v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A law firm, Sherrets Bruno & Vogt LLC (SBV), sued Timothy E. Montoya, an Arizona resident, in the District Court for Douglas County, Nebraska, to collect unpaid attorney fees. These fees were part of a divorce settlement agreement from an Arizona court, where Montoya agreed to pay his ex-wife's attorney fees to SBV. Montoya failed to make the payments and did not respond to the lawsuit or appear in court.The District Court for Douglas County overruled SBV's motion for default judgment and dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court found that Montoya's only contact with Nebraska was through phone calls to SBV's Nebraska office, which did not establish sufficient minimum contacts to confer personal jurisdiction. The court gave SBV an opportunity to present facts establishing jurisdiction but found the evidence insufficient.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that an objection to personal jurisdiction is not waived by default when a nonresident fails to respond to process served out of state and does not appear. It also held that a trial court may raise personal jurisdiction on its own motion when deciding whether to enter a default judgment because the defendant has failed to appear. The court concluded that SBV failed to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over Montoya, as the limited communications and agreement to pay fees to a Nebraska office did not establish the necessary minimum contacts. Therefore, the dismissal of the case for lack of personal jurisdiction was affirmed. View "Sherrets Bruno & Vogt v. Montoya" on Justia Law

Marlene Banwart and her husband Richard filed a medical malpractice lawsuit in 2020 against Neurosurgery of North Iowa, P.C., Dr. David Beck, and Dr. Thomas Getta. Marlene had undergone a lumbar laminectomy performed by Dr. Beck in July 2018, followed by severe postoperative pain and complications, including an epidural hematoma that required emergency surgery. The plaintiffs alleged negligence in the surgery and postoperative care by Dr. Beck and Dr. Getta.The Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' action as time-barred, concluding that the Iowa Supreme Court's emergency supervisory orders tolling the statute of limitations during the COVID-19 pandemic were invalid. However, the court found that the plaintiffs had substantially complied with Iowa's certificate of merit affidavit statute, despite the certificates not being signed under oath or penalty of perjury. Both parties appealed these rulings.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and bypassed the statute of limitations issue, focusing on the cross-appeal regarding the certificate of merit. The court held that the plaintiffs' certificates did not substantially comply with Iowa Code section 147.140 because they were not signed under oath or penalty of perjury. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' claims that the statute was void for vagueness and that the defendants had waived their rights by delaying their challenge. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's ruling on the certificates of merit and remanded the case for entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Banwart v. Neurosurgery of North Iowa, P.C." on Justia Law

Joyce Pates filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Community Health Systems, Inc. (CHSI), Affinity Hospital, LLC, d/b/a Grandview Medical Center, Dr. John Kirchner, and Southlake Orthopaedics Sports Medicine and Spine Center, P.C. Pates alleged that after injuring her ankle and undergoing surgery performed by Dr. Kirchner at Grandview Medical Center, she experienced complications leading to an infection and ultimately the amputation of her right leg.The Jefferson Circuit Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, which argued that Pates's claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations under the Alabama Medical Liability Act (AMLA). The court reasoned that Pates's injury began when she was informed of the need for amputation, thus starting the statute of limitations from that point.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and determined that Pates's claims were indeed barred by the AMLA's statute of limitations. The court found that Pates's injuries, including signs of infection and the need for hardware removal, were evident by November 2020. Therefore, the statute of limitations began at that time, and Pates's complaint filed in February 2023 was outside the two-year limit. The court granted the petitions for writs of mandamus, directing the trial court to dismiss Pates's claims against the defendants. View "Ex parte Affinity Hospital, LLC" on Justia Law

John Cassimus, Jason T. Carrick, and Ryan McAllister were members of several limited-liability companies operating retail-liquidation stores, which have since closed. Carrick and McAllister alleged that Cassimus misused corporate assets for personal gain, while Cassimus claimed that Carrick and McAllister enriched their own company, Xcess Limited, at the expense of the stores. Carrick and McAllister sued Cassimus and his associates in the Shelby Circuit Court, asserting various claims including breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.The Shelby Circuit Court denied the Cassimus defendants' motion to dismiss the derivative claims, appointed a special master to oversee discovery, and dismissed claims against East Hampton Advisors, LLC, based on the abatement statute. The Cassimus defendants and Carrick and McAllister sought mandamus review of these orders in the Supreme Court of Alabama.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the petitions. In case no. SC-2024-0284, the court denied the Cassimus defendants' petition, holding that the question of whether Carrick and McAllister could fairly and adequately represent the companies was a fact-intensive inquiry not suitable for mandamus review at the pleading stage. In case no. SC-2024-0318, the court dismissed the Cassimus defendants' petition as untimely because it was filed outside the presumptively reasonable time without a statement of good cause. In case no. SC-2024-0349, the court denied Carrick and McAllister's petition, holding that they had another adequate remedy through a Rule 54(b) appeal, which they did not pursue.The court lifted the stay previously entered and directed the trial court to resume proceedings. View "Ex parte Cassimus" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Melissa Mandell-Brown filed a complaint against Novo Nordisk, Inc. and Zamaneh Zamanian, asserting 16 causes of action, including claims for discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Labor Code, as well as common law claims for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by a separate statement of 161 undisputed facts, attorney declarations, and witness declarations. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion or a separate statement.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment after plaintiff failed to file the required opposition or separate statement, despite being granted two continuances. The court found no genuine issues of material fact and concluded that the plaintiff could not prove the elements of her causes of action. Plaintiff appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(3), by granting the motion based on the plaintiff’s failure to file the requisite separate statement. The appellate court noted that the trial court had the discretion to grant the motion for summary judgment when the opposing party fails to comply with the requirement of a separate statement. Given the complexity of the case and the plaintiff's failure to submit any opposition or appear at the hearing, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Mandell-Brown v. Novo Nordisk Inc." on Justia Law

Vicor Corporation supplied power converter modules to Foxconn for years. Vicor alleged that Foxconn switched to manufacturing and importing knock-off modules that infringed Vicor's patents. In July 2023, Vicor filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging patent infringement by Foxconn. Simultaneously, Vicor sued Foxconn for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which stayed the case pending the ITC's resolution. Foxconn then initiated arbitration in China, claiming Vicor had agreed to arbitrate disputes based on terms in purchase orders. Vicor filed a new lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, seeking to enjoin the arbitration and declare it was not bound by the arbitration or license terms.The district court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) and later a preliminary injunction against the arbitration, despite Foxconn's request for a stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1659. The court acknowledged that Section 1659 applied but concluded it could still grant preliminary relief based on the All Writs Act and its inherent authority to preserve its jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that Section 1659 required the district court to stay proceedings because Vicor's claims involved issues also present in the ITC proceeding. The appellate court held that the district court erred in granting the preliminary injunction despite Foxconn's request for a stay. Consequently, the First Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Vicor Corp. v. FII USA Inc." on Justia Law