Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs Andrea Klein Gregg and the Huntsman-West Foundation (the Foundation) sued Melinda Susan Smith for general negligence, intentional tort, and premises liability after Gregg's personal property, stored at Dennis James Babcock's residence, went missing. Babcock, who lived alone on the premises, had allowed Gregg to store her items there. When their relationship ended, Gregg was initially denied access to retrieve her property. Upon gaining access, she found most of her property missing or damaged.The Superior Court of Riverside County granted Smith's motion for summary judgment, finding she had no duty to protect the personal property as she had no control over the premises or the property. The court also sustained Smith's evidentiary objections, excluding much of the plaintiffs' evidence as hearsay or lacking foundation.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that Smith had no legal duty to the plaintiffs regarding the personal property. The court found that Smith had no control over the premises or the property and that the plaintiffs failed to present admissible evidence to create a triable issue of fact. The court also held that the claims of agency, mutual interest, joint venture, and ratification were not properly raised in the complaint and could not be considered.The main holding was that Smith owed no duty to the plaintiffs regarding the personal property, and the trial court properly granted summary judgment in her favor. The court also affirmed the exclusion of the plaintiffs' evidence and the rejection of new legal theories not raised in the original complaint. View "Huntsman-West Foundation v. Smith" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of consumers, alleged that Strange Honey Farm, LLC, fraudulently marketed its honey products as "100% raw Tennessee honey." They claimed the honey was not raw, as it was heated during processing, not purely honey, as it was diluted with corn syrup, and not from Tennessee, as it was sourced from Vietnam. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Strange Honey, its owners, and two supermarket chains that sold the honey, asserting fraudulent misrepresentation and violations of various state consumer protection laws.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee dismissed the claims against all defendants except one, citing a lack of specificity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The court also denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed the remaining defendant and appealed the district court's decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and addressed several jurisdictional issues. The court determined that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's eventual entry of final judgment, after the premature notice of appeal, ripened the appellate jurisdiction. On the merits, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to meet the specificity requirements of Rule 9(b). The court noted that the complaint did not adequately allege why the statements on the honey labels were false or when the statements were made to the plaintiffs. The court also upheld the district court's denial of leave to amend, concluding that the proposed amendments would be futile as they did not cure the deficiencies in the original complaint. View "Greer v. Strange Honey Farm" on Justia Law

A man sued his neighbors, claiming that an access road on their property caused flooding on his property. After settling with the neighbors and dismissing his claims with prejudice, he sued them again over continued flooding, alleging nuisance, trespass, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and breach of contract.The Superior Court of Alaska, Third Judicial District, granted summary judgment for the neighbors on the tort claims, citing res judicata, but allowed the breach of contract claim to proceed. After a bench trial, the court found the neighbors had breached the settlement agreement and awarded specific performance, consequential damages, and attorney’s fees, but denied punitive damages. The neighbors appealed the breach of contract ruling, and the man cross-appealed the dismissal of his tort claims and the denial of punitive damages.The Supreme Court of Alaska reversed the Superior Court’s ruling on the breach of contract claim, finding it was filed outside the three-year statute of limitations. The court held that the man was on inquiry notice of the breach when the driveway reconstruction was completed, as he observed defects at that time. The court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision that the tort claims were barred by res judicata, as they stemmed from the same transaction as the prior lawsuit. The court also upheld the denial of punitive damages, finding no evidence of egregious conduct by the neighbors.In summary, the Supreme Court of Alaska reversed the breach of contract ruling and associated awards, affirmed the dismissal of the tort claims under res judicata, and upheld the denial of punitive damages. View "Williams v. Strong" on Justia Law

Evan D., an Indian child, was born with significant health complications. Shortly after his birth, the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) filed an emergency petition to adjudicate him a child in need of aid due to his parents' history of neglect, substance abuse, and domestic violence. Evan was placed with foster parents Rosalind and Max M., who lived near a medical facility capable of addressing his health needs. The Native Village of Togiak, Evan’s tribe, was informed of the proceedings and later petitioned to transfer jurisdiction over Evan’s case to the tribal court.The Superior Court of Alaska, Third Judicial District, adjudicated Evan a child in need of aid and granted temporary custody to OCS. OCS petitioned to terminate the parental rights of Evan’s parents, and the Tribe petitioned to transfer jurisdiction. Rosalind and Max moved to intervene, arguing that the Tribe might place Evan with his grandmother, who they believed could not meet his health needs. The Superior Court denied their motion, stating that federal law prohibits considering potential placement changes when deciding whether to transfer jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. The court held that the foster parents' arguments against transferring jurisdiction were contrary to federal law, which prohibits considering whether transfer could affect the child's placement. The court affirmed the Superior Court's decision, stating that the foster parents did not present valid grounds to deny the transfer of jurisdiction and therefore did not share any issue of law or fact in common with the underlying proceedings that would justify their intervention. The court also addressed the procedure for staying transfer orders pending appeal, emphasizing the need to balance competing interests. View "Rosalind M. v. State" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between two lakefront property owners, the McCavits and the Lachers, over a dock extension built by the McCavits. The Lachers claimed that the extension interfered with their riparian rights and constituted a private nuisance. The superior court agreed and ordered the removal of the dock extension. The McCavits appealed, leading to the articulation of a new rule of reasonableness to determine whether the dock unreasonably interfered with the neighbors' rights. The case was remanded for the superior court to apply this new rule, and the court again ruled in favor of the Lachers.Initially, the superior court found that the dock extension unreasonably interfered with the Lachers' riparian rights and constituted a private nuisance. The court ordered the removal of the dock extension and awarded attorney’s fees to the Lachers. The McCavits appealed, and the Alaska Supreme Court remanded the case for the superior court to apply a newly articulated rule of reasonableness. On remand, the superior court reaffirmed its earlier findings and again ruled in favor of the Lachers, ordering the removal of the dock extension and awarding attorney’s fees.The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in applying the new rule of reasonableness or in finding that the dock constituted a private nuisance. However, the Supreme Court vacated the award of attorney’s fees and remanded for further consideration, noting that fees related to the litigation against the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) should not be charged to the McCavits. The main holding is that the superior court's application of the reasonableness rule and its finding of a private nuisance were upheld, but the attorney’s fees award was vacated and remanded for recalculation. View "McCavit v. Lacher" on Justia Law

Advanced Benefit Concepts, Inc. (ABC) filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Access Health, Inc., Preferred Care Services, Inc., and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama (collectively, Access Health). ABC alleged that Access Health failed to pay fees owed under an agreement where ABC helped Access Health secure a contract with the State of Louisiana’s Office of Group Benefits (OGB). Access Health countered that the contract was null and void because ABC did not register as a lobbyist as required by the Louisiana Executive Branch Lobbying Act.The district court ruled in favor of Access Health, declaring the contract void due to ABC’s failure to register as a lobbyist. The court granted Access Health’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing ABC’s breach of contract claim. ABC’s exceptions of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and prescription were overruled. ABC appealed the decision.The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, reversed the district court’s decision, holding that the Board of Ethics had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of the contract under the Lobbying Act. The appellate court concluded that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to declare the contract void and reversed the summary judgment.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and reversed the appellate court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the contractual dispute, including the affirmative defense of nullity based on the Lobbying Act. The court emphasized that the Executive Branch Lobbying Act does not deprive the district court of jurisdiction and that the district court can consider whether the contract is an absolute nullity under Louisiana Civil Code article 2030. The case was remanded to the appellate court to consider the exception of prescription and the merits of the summary judgment motion. View "ADVANCED BENEFIT CONCEPTS, INC. VS. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ALABAMA" on Justia Law

Quintez Talley, an incarcerated individual, sought in forma pauperis (IFP) status to appeal without prepaying filing fees. The appellees argued that the "three strikes" provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) barred Talley from proceeding IFP, claiming that three of his previous cases were dismissed on grounds that qualify as strikes under the PLRA. Talley contended that only one of these cases constituted a strike.The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed Talley's federal claim for failure to state a claim and his medical malpractice claim for not complying with Pennsylvania procedural rules. The court did not dismiss the entire action on strike-qualifying grounds, so this case did not count as a strike. In another case, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed Talley's complaint for failure to state a claim but granted him leave to amend. Talley did not amend within the deadline, but the court did not formally close the case before Talley filed his notice of appeal, so this case also did not count as a strike. In a third case, the same court dismissed Talley's claims for failure to state a claim and noted his failure to file a certificate of merit for his medical malpractice claim. This dismissal was on strike-qualifying grounds, making it a strike.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and determined that only one of Talley's previous cases constituted a strike. The court held that the dismissal of the medical malpractice claim for procedural non-compliance did not qualify as a strike, and the case where Talley was given leave to amend but did not do so was not formally closed, thus not a strike. The court granted Talley's motion to proceed IFP, allowing him to appeal without prepaying filing fees. View "Talley v. Pillai" on Justia Law

In this case, several plaintiffs challenged Hawaii and California laws that restrict the carrying of firearms in various locations, arguing that these laws violate their Second Amendment rights. The laws in question generally prohibit carrying firearms in places such as parks, beaches, bars, restaurants that serve alcohol, financial institutions, and private property without explicit consent from the property owner.The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii granted a preliminary injunction against Hawaii's law, enjoining the enforcement of the firearm restrictions in parking lots shared by government and non-government buildings, financial institutions, public beaches, public parks, bars, and restaurants that serve alcohol. The court also enjoined the new default rule for private property open to the public. The United States District Court for the Central District of California similarly granted a preliminary injunction against California's law, enjoining the enforcement of firearm restrictions in hospitals, playgrounds, public transit, parks, athletic facilities, places of worship, financial institutions, and private property open to the public.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed these decisions. The court affirmed the preliminary injunctions in part and reversed them in part. The Ninth Circuit held that some places specified by the Hawaii and California laws likely fall within the national tradition of prohibiting firearms at sensitive places, such as bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, parks, and similar areas. However, the court found that other places, such as financial institutions and places of worship, do not fall within this tradition. The court also held that the new default rule prohibiting the carry of firearms onto private property without consent is likely unconstitutional in California but not in Hawaii.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunctions to the extent that they enjoin restrictions on firearms at financial institutions, parking lots adjacent to financial institutions, and parking lots shared by government and non-government buildings. The court reversed the preliminary injunctions to the extent that they enjoin restrictions on firearms at bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, beaches, parks, and similar areas, and the new default rule prohibiting the carry of firearms onto private property without consent in Hawaii. View "WOLFORD V. LOPEZ" on Justia Law

Kekai Watanabe, an inmate at the Federal Detention Center in Honolulu, was severely injured during a gang-related assault in July 2021. Despite his serious injuries, including a fractured coccyx and bone chips in surrounding tissue, the prison nurse only provided over-the-counter medication and refused to send him to a hospital. Watanabe was kept in solitary confinement for over two months and repeatedly requested medical attention, which was largely ignored. He was not properly diagnosed until February 2022 and had not seen a specialist by the time of the court proceedings.The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii initially allowed Watanabe’s claim against the nurse to proceed but later dismissed it, concluding that no Bivens remedy existed for his Eighth Amendment claim. Watanabe appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that Watanabe’s claim did not present a new Bivens context, as it was not meaningfully different from the Supreme Court’s decision in Carlson v. Green, where an implied damages action was recognized under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. The court found that Watanabe’s allegations were sufficiently similar to those in Carlson, thus allowing his Bivens claim to proceed.Additionally, the Ninth Circuit construed Watanabe’s request for injunctive relief related to his ongoing medical care as standalone claims for injunctive relief, not under Bivens. The court remanded the case to the district court to address whether Watanabe may amend his request for injunctive relief and to address any such claims in the first instance. View "WATANABE V. DERR" on Justia Law

A fire damaged a hotel owned by Shri Ganesai, LLC, which had an insurance policy with AmGuard Insurance Company. The policy also covered the mortgagee, Academy Bank, N.A. AmGuard denied Shri's claim, suspecting arson by Shri's principal, Alex Patel. During the investigation, the building suffered additional damage from vandalism and frozen pipes. Shri and Academy sued AmGuard for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay. The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding damages for the fire, vandalism, and freeze damage.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied AmGuard's motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial. AmGuard appealed, challenging the viability of Academy's vexatious-refusal claim, the exclusion of certain evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence regarding damages from vandalism and frozen pipes. The district court had granted summary judgment to AmGuard on Shri's vexatious-refusal claim but allowed the remaining claims to proceed to trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that Academy's vexatious-refusal claim was viable despite the settlement of the underlying breach-of-contract claim, as AmGuard's delay in payment constituted vexatious conduct. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's exclusion of certain evidence, including the testimony of a witness and parts of Patel's deposition. Additionally, the court ruled that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings on the timing and extent of the vandalism and freeze damage, and that the expert testimony admitted was reliable. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying AmGuard's motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. View "Academy Bank, N.A. v. Amguard Insurance Company" on Justia Law