Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The case involves Leika Joanna García-Gesualdo, who filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Honeywell Aerospace of Puerto Rico, Inc., and Honeywell International, Inc. García-Gesualdo alleged that Honeywell discriminated against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC investigated her claims but decided not to proceed further, issuing a right-to-sue letter on March 29, 2022. García-Gesualdo filed her lawsuit on July 7, 2022, 100 days after the EEOC's decision.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed García-Gesualdo's claims as time-barred, agreeing with Honeywell that the complaint was filed more than ninety days after the EEOC issued the right-to-sue letter. The court noted that García-Gesualdo's attorney received emails from the EEOC on March 29 and April 6, indicating that a new document was available on the EEOC's portal. The district court concluded that the ninety-day period began on either March 29 or April 6, making the July 7 filing untimely.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that neither the March 29 email nor the April 6 email provided sufficient notice of García-Gesualdo's right to sue. The court emphasized that the emails did not unambiguously indicate that the EEOC had terminated its processes or that the ninety-day period to file a lawsuit had begun. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that the facts establishing untimeliness were not clear on the face of the pleadings, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Garcia-Gesualdo v. Honeywell Aerospace of Puerto Rico, Inc." on Justia Law

A firearms dealer in Madison County filed a lawsuit against the Illinois Attorney General, challenging the constitutionality of a state statute known as the Firearms Industry Responsibility Act. The plaintiff argued that the statute was preempted by federal law, void for vagueness, violated the Second Amendment, and violated the Illinois Constitution's three-readings rule. Additionally, the plaintiff contended that the venue provision, which limited venue to Sangamon and Cook Counties for actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief from a constitutional challenge to a state statute, was unconstitutional as it violated federal due process rights.The circuit court of Madison County denied the Attorney General's motion to transfer the case to Sangamon County and granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the venue issue. The court found that transferring the case to Sangamon County would be inconvenient for the plaintiff and would deprive it of its ability to effectively challenge the statute. The court concluded that the venue provision was unconstitutional as applied to individuals residing or injured outside of Cook or Sangamon Counties.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case and reversed the circuit court's decision. The court held that the venue provision did not violate the plaintiff's due process rights. The court emphasized that the inconvenience of traveling to Sangamon County did not rise to the level of a due process violation, especially considering the availability of remote court proceedings. The court also noted that the legislature has the authority to determine venue and that the state's interest in consolidating actions in certain counties was reasonable. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Piasa Armory, LLC v. Raoul" on Justia Law

In 2003, Sarah Ramey underwent a urethral dilation performed by Dr. Edward Dunne, which resulted in severe pain and subsequent debilitating medical conditions. Over the next fourteen years, Ramey sought medical advice from numerous doctors to determine the cause of her ailments. In 2017, Drs. Mario Castellanos and Lee Arnold Dellon linked her symptoms to the 2003 procedure. Ramey filed a lawsuit against Dr. Dunne and Foxhall Urology in 2019.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia held a bifurcated trial to determine if Ramey’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The jury found that Ramey failed to file her suit within the three-year statute of limitations. Ramey then filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, for a new trial, arguing that the trial court erred in its rulings and jury instructions. The trial court denied her motion.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not err in denying Ramey’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, as there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Ramey had received medical opinions linking her symptoms to the urethral dilation before 2017. The court also found that Ramey waived her claim regarding the jury instructions by affirmatively agreeing to them during the trial.However, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in not granting a new trial based on the improper invocation of inquiry notice by appellees’ counsel during rebuttal closing arguments. The court found that the trial court’s corrective instruction was insufficient to mitigate the prejudicial impact of the improper argument. Consequently, the case was remanded for a new trial. View "Ramey v. Foxhall Urology, Chartered" on Justia Law

Virgin Valley Water District (the District) entered into a lease agreement with Paradise Canyon, LLC (Paradise Canyon) in 2011 to provide water shares for irrigating a golf course. The lease included a right of first refusal for Paradise Canyon to renew the lease, with the District having sole discretion to set rental rates after January 1, 2020. In 2019, the District increased the rental rate, leading Paradise Canyon to sue for declaratory relief and damages, alleging bad faith breach of the lease agreement.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County granted partial summary judgment for Paradise Canyon on certain claims and set others for a jury trial. The jury found that the District had breached the lease in bad faith and awarded damages to Paradise Canyon. The District appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and found that the lease agreement unambiguously granted the District sole discretion to set rental rates after January 1, 2020. The court held that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to interpret this unambiguous provision and in finding that the District breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Supreme Court also noted several procedural errors, including the trial court's improper judicial notice of its own factfinding, admission of prejudicial evidence, and unfair trial practices that limited the District's ability to present its case.The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the portions of the trial court's judgment related to the interpretation of the lease renewal provisions and the jury's verdict on the rental rate and damages. The court affirmed the trial court's rulings on beneficial use and other uncontested matters. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DIST. VS. PARADISE CANYON, LLC" on Justia Law

Barbara McNally sued Debbie-Ann Bromfield and her husband Everald Thompson in the Superior Court for multiple claims related to a property dispute. After Thompson filed for bankruptcy, McNally and Thompson reached a settlement agreement, which included dismissing McNally's pending lawsuit. McNally filed a motion for voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Super. Ct. Civ. R. 41(a)(2), which Bromfield opposed, seeking a decision on the merits through her own summary judgment motion. The trial court granted McNally’s motion to dismiss with prejudice and denied Bromfield’s summary judgment motion as moot, reasoning that Bromfield would not suffer any legal detriment from the dismissal.Bromfield appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in granting McNally’s motion for voluntary dismissal, claiming it caused her legal prejudice. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court noted that Bromfield was not "aggrieved" by the dismissal with prejudice of the claims against her, as she had effectively prevailed in all relevant respects. The court emphasized that it has an independent obligation to ensure its jurisdiction and that Bromfield did not suffer an infringement or denial of legal rights.The court held that Bromfield’s desire for vindication did not constitute a cognizable legal injury and that her potential future claims, such as a malicious prosecution suit, did not provide grounds for appeal. The court concluded that Bromfield had secured an unmitigated victory in the underlying proceedings and dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Bromfield-Thompson v. McNally" on Justia Law

The appellants, Robin and Louie Joseph Aquilino, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in April 2020 and retained the law firm Spector Gadon Rosen & Vinci P.C. (Spector Gadon) as their counsel. They agreed to pay a flat fee of $3,500 and a $335 filing fee, which Spector Gadon disclosed to the Bankruptcy Court. However, due to the complexity of the case, Spector Gadon billed the Aquilinos for additional post-petition services, resulting in a fee agreement of $113,000, which was not disclosed to the Bankruptcy Court as required by 11 U.S.C. § 329(a) and Bankruptcy Rule 2016(b).The Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey found that Spector Gadon violated the disclosure requirements and sanctioned the firm by ordering the disgorgement of collected fees and cancellation of the remaining fee agreement. Spector Gadon appealed, and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey reversed the Bankruptcy Court's decision, concluding that Spector Gadon was entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the Bankruptcy Court had "core" jurisdiction over the fee disclosure issue under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). The Third Circuit held that the Seventh Amendment did not entitle Spector Gadon to a jury trial in the § 329(a) proceeding because the sanctions imposed were equitable in nature, designed to restore the status quo, and did not involve legal claims. The Third Circuit also found that the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions, as it considered all relevant factors, including the Debtors' misconduct.The Third Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment and reinstated the Bankruptcy Court's sanctions order. View "In re Aquilino" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Mya Noelia Fallon, applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under the Social Security Act, citing epileptic seizures and cognitive and behavioral limitations. Her application included assessments from her neurologist, Dr. Joseph Drazkowski, and licensed professional counselor (LPC) Terry Galler, who noted significant cognitive impairments and anxiety disorders. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Fallon not disabled, giving minimal weight to the opinions of Dr. Drazkowski and LPC Galler, and discrediting other medical and lay testimony.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona partially reversed the ALJ's decision, finding errors in the discounting of some witnesses but agreeing with the ALJ's assessment of Dr. Drazkowski's and LPC Galler's opinions. The case was remanded for further consideration. On remand, the ALJ again found Fallon not disabled, incorporating the prior evaluations. Fallon appealed, and the district court affirmed the ALJ's decision, refusing to revisit its prior conclusions about the medical opinions based on the law-of-the-case doctrine.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the law-of-the-case doctrine applies in the social security context, meaning that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to reconsider the evaluations of Dr. Drazkowski and LPC Galler. The court explained that a social-security applicant has two options to preserve the right to appeal: immediately appeal the remand order or proceed on remand, understanding that the district court may decline to revisit settled issues. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, noting that Fallon forfeited her ability to challenge the evaluations by not raising the issue in her first appeal. View "FALLON V. DUDEK" on Justia Law

In May 2023, Officers Jacob Ondich and Mathew Lougee of the Casper Police Department arrested Daniel Charles Hemmer at his home and transported him to the Natrona County Detention Center (NCDC). Hemmer was charged with felony theft and entered a no-contest plea in December 2023. Subsequently, Hemmer filed a civil suit against the officers, the Casper Police Department, and NCDC, alleging unlawful entry, arrest without probable cause or a warrant, and a strip search at NCDC. He claimed the officers' actions constituted kidnapping and sought $12 million in damages.The Natrona County District Court dismissed Hemmer's complaint. The court found that Hemmer did not allege facts showing NCDC's involvement in his arrest or provide legal authority for his claims against the detention center. The court also dismissed the claims against the Casper Police Department due to a lack of specific allegations. The kidnapping claim against the officers was dismissed because Hemmer did not support it with legal authority. Additionally, the court concluded that Hemmer failed to submit a timely notice of claim under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and summarily affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court noted that Hemmer's pro se brief did not comply with appellate rules, lacked a statement of issues, and failed to present cogent arguments supported by legal authority. The court emphasized that while pro se litigants are given some leniency, they must still reasonably comply with procedural rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss Hemmer's complaint. View "Hemmer v. City of Casper Police Department" on Justia Law

Two former police officers, Mark Zukowski and Joshua Ruggiero, were injured in the line of duty and subsequently awarded both accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits and workers' compensation benefits. The ADR benefits exceeded the workers' compensation benefits, resulting in an offset of the latter. The key issue in this case was whether attorney’s fees should be calculated before or after applying the statutory offset under Maryland’s Workers’ Compensation Act.The Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission awarded Zukowski and Ruggiero workers' compensation benefits, but these were largely offset by their ADR benefits. The Commission calculated attorney’s fees based on the reduced, post-offset amount of workers' compensation benefits. Zukowski and Ruggiero argued that attorney’s fees should be calculated based on the total award before applying the offset, contending that the terms "compensation" and "benefits" in the relevant statutes should be interpreted differently.The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County affirmed the Commission’s decision, agreeing that attorney’s fees should be calculated after applying the offset. The court found no distinction between "compensation" and "benefits" in this context and held that attorney’s fees are a lien on the compensation actually payable to the claimant.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that the terms "compensation" and "benefits" are interchangeable in this context, meaning that attorney’s fees should be calculated based on the amount of workers' compensation benefits payable after applying the statutory offset. The Court emphasized that the attorney’s fees are a lien on the compensation awarded, which is the amount actually payable to the claimant after the offset. The Court also rejected the argument that this interpretation was unconstitutional, noting that attorneys voluntarily enter into contingency fee arrangements and are aware of the statutory framework governing such fees. View "Zukowski v. Anne Arundel Cnty." on Justia Law

Michael and Susan Gates failed to file individual or corporate tax returns from 2012 to 2017. Mr. Gates pled no contest to one count of failing to file or pay taxes and was ordered to file tax returns for 2015, 2016, and 2017. The Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) audited these returns and found that the Gateses had not properly calculated their tax liability. The Gateses disputed this determination, submitted additional documentation, and DFA adjusted its calculations but still found the Gateses owed taxes. The Gateses continued to dispute the amount, leading to this lawsuit.The Garland County Circuit Court initially granted summary judgment in favor of DFA, but this decision was reversed and remanded by a higher court, which found that DFA had not adequately explained its calculations. On remand, DFA provided detailed evidence of its calculations and disallowances, and the circuit court again granted summary judgment in favor of DFA, noting the Gateses' failure to meaningfully respond to the new evidence.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that DFA had met its prima facie burden by providing detailed evidence of the Gateses' net taxable income and tax liability for 2015, 2016, and 2017. The Gateses failed to meet their burden of proof by not providing specific facts to dispute DFA's calculations. The court concluded that the Gateses' general references to a large volume of documents were insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. The court did not address the Gateses' evidentiary objections, as it found that even considering the disputed documents, summary judgment was still appropriate. View "GATES v. HUDSON" on Justia Law