Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Four individuals alleged that they owned funds subject to Ohio’s unclaimed property regime and that their funds were set to escheat, or transfer, to the state as of January 1, 2026, due to recent amendments to Ohio’s Unclaimed Funds Act. The Act requires holders of unclaimed funds to remit those funds to the state after a period of dormancy, with additional amendments providing that funds held for ten years or more would escheat to the state, although owners would still have ten additional years to claim an equivalent amount, with interest, less expenses.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against state officials responsible for implementing the Act. They argued that the statutory regime violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and various Ohio laws. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the escheatment of their funds, claiming they received insufficient notice and would suffer irreparable harm. The district court denied the request, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated irreparable harm, particularly since they could still claim the funds from the state after escheatment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial for abuse of discretion. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs had not shown irreparable harm because they retained a statutory avenue to recover their funds with interest after escheatment and could seek a monetary judgment if their constitutional claims succeeded. The court further determined that the plaintiffs either had actual notice of their funds or failed to identify specific property at risk, so no likelihood of irreparable harm was shown. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. View "Bleick v. Maxfield" on Justia Law

The case centers on a plaintiff who filed a Fair Labor Standards Act suit for unpaid wages and recordkeeping violations against his former employer. The plaintiff’s attorney, who neither resides nor holds an office near the courthouse, failed to appoint local counsel within the required timeframe due to a calendaring error. Pursuant to the district court’s local rule, a notice was issued warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal. After the deadline passed without compliance, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice, citing failure to prosecute or comply with court rules.Following the dismissal, the plaintiff promptly moved to reopen the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), arguing that his attorney’s oversight constituted excusable neglect, and appointed local counsel. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that the plaintiff had not shown that dismissal without prejudice amounted to dismissal with prejudice, and cited prior Fifth Circuit cases as support. The plaintiff filed a second motion, distinguishing his case from the cited cases and again seeking relief, but the district court denied this motion as well, applying the same reasoning.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of the Rule 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that the district court erred by imposing a requirement that the plaintiff show dismissal without prejudice functioned as a dismissal with prejudice before granting relief under Rule 60(b). The Fifth Circuit clarified that neither Campbell v. Wilkinson nor Jones v. Meridian Security Insurance Company established such a standard for Rule 60(b) motions. The appellate court vacated the district court’s denials of the plaintiff’s motions and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to consider the proper factors for excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1). View "Deras v. Johnson & Johnson" on Justia Law

A two-year-old child was struck and killed by a vehicle in the drive-through lane of a Chick-fil-A in Yukon, Oklahoma. The child’s parents sued Chick-fil-A, alleging that its design for pedestrian access, which required crossing the drive-through lane, created a dangerous condition. They claimed Chick-fil-A breached its duty to provide reasonably safe premises. The parents served discovery requests seeking documents and communications about adverse pedestrian incidents at all Chick-fil-A restaurants nationwide over a ten-year period, later offering to limit the scope to five years and incidents involving pedestrians in parking lots.Chick-fil-A objected, arguing the requests were overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not limited to substantially similar incidents. Chick-fil-A said it would provide information only for substantially similar incidents within Oklahoma in the preceding five years. The District Court of Oklahoma County, presided over by Judge Richard Ogden, granted the parents’ motion to compel but limited the requests to pedestrian incidents in parking lots of any Chick-fil-A with a drive-through in the United States within five years prior to the incident. Chick-fil-A sought extraordinary relief from this order.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma assumed original jurisdiction and found the district court abused its discretion by not requiring the parents to show how their overly broad discovery requests were relevant to any claim or defense, as now required by 12 O.S. 2021 § 3226. The Supreme Court emphasized that discovery must be proportional and relevant to a party’s claim or defense, not just to the subject matter. The Supreme Court issued a writ of prohibition, barring enforcement of the lower court’s order and authorizing reconsideration of the motion to compel in line with its opinion. View "CHICK-FIL-A v. OGDEN" on Justia Law

A plaintiff obtained a default judgment in Texas state court against Hugh D. Dale, Jr. and two companies he controlled. To enforce the judgment, the plaintiff registered it in West Virginia, where the Circuit Court of Calhoun County issued writs of execution and approved a process known as “suggestion” to identify assets belonging to the judgment debtors. Peoples Bank, which held several accounts listing the judgment debtors as co-owners along with various partnerships, was notified and, pursuant to statutory procedure, debited the accounts and sent the funds to the judgment creditor. The partnerships, also named on the accounts, claimed the funds belonged exclusively to them and not to Dale or his companies.The partnerships filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia against Peoples Bank and its employees, alleging negligence and conversion. The district court dismissed the negligence claim as untimely and the conversion claim as implausible, concluding the bank had merely complied with the statutory mechanism for judgment enforcement. The partnerships appealed only the dismissal of the conversion claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the conversion claim de novo. It held that Peoples Bank’s actions were authorized by West Virginia law, specifically West Virginia Code § 38-5-14, which allows a bank to turn over property belonging to a judgment debtor upon receipt of a suggestion and provides immunity from liability for doing so. The court found no wrongful exercise of dominion by the bank, as required for conversion, and rejected arguments that the bank acted improperly by not affording the partnerships or Dale prior notice. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the conversion claim. View "Cin Dale 3 v. Peoples Bank Corp." on Justia Law

An employee of a major defense contractor, serving in a senior internal audit role, claimed to have discovered fraudulent activity involving government contracts for military aircraft. The contractor, which assembles aircraft using parts supplied by numerous subcontractors, is subject to detailed regulatory requirements intended to ensure fair pricing, including the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). The plaintiff alleged that the contractor systematically ignored and concealed fraudulent inflation of cost and pricing data by its subcontractors, resulting in overbilling the government.The plaintiff brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), which allows private individuals to sue on behalf of the government. Previously, another relator had filed a separate FCA action against the same contractor, alleging a different fraudulent scheme: obtaining parts in bulk at a discount but charging the government full price. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ruling that the FCA’s “first-to-file” bar applied because the earlier action covered the same essential elements of fraud.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The appellate court found that the two complaints alleged distinct fraudulent schemes: one involving bulk pricing manipulation, and the other involving the submission of inflated subcontractor cost data. The Fifth Circuit held that the first-to-file bar under the FCA did not apply because the plaintiff’s complaint was based on a different mechanism of fraud, not merely additional details or locations of the same scheme. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ferguson v. Lockheed Martin" on Justia Law

The plaintiff brought employment discrimination and retaliation claims against the defendants, his former employers, alleging violations of federal and state law. After initiating the lawsuit in July 2021, the plaintiff failed over several years to respond to the defendants’ discovery requests, despite multiple court orders and continuances. The plaintiff’s attorney repeatedly missed deadlines, did not answer interrogatories or produce documents, and failed to pay court-ordered attorney’s fees. Even after the court vacated its scheduling order, delayed the trial multiple times, and assessed additional attorney’s fees, the plaintiff’s counsel did not advance the case, leading to three continuances and a case that remained undeveloped.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana responded to the plaintiff’s ongoing lack of participation by granting the defendants’ motion to exclude all evidence when the fourth trial date approached with no discovery completed. The plaintiff’s counsel did not attend the status conference regarding the exclusion motion despite acknowledging notice. With no admissible evidence remaining, the court then granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case with prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed both the exclusion of evidence and the dismissal with prejudice for abuse of discretion. The court held that the district court correctly applied the standard four-factor test for exclusion of evidence as a discovery sanction and was not required to apply a heightened standard for litigation-ending sanctions. The court further found that a clear record of delay existed, lesser sanctions had proven futile, and the defendants were prejudiced by the plaintiff’s failures. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing the case with prejudice. View "Savage v. LaSalle Management" on Justia Law

A former corrections officer brought suit against several supervisory employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, alleging that his rights under the Equal Protection Clause were violated due to race discrimination and retaliation after he complained about such discrimination. He claimed that, while employed at Downstate Correctional Facility, he was denied requests for outside employment that were granted to white colleagues, suspended without pay in circumstances where white officers were suspended with pay, and barred from returning to work after filing discrimination and workplace violence complaints. The defendants disputed these allegations, offering alternative explanations for their actions and contesting whether Miller was similarly situated to the relevant comparators.After extensive discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In addition to arguing that the summary judgment record did not reveal any material factual disputes, they asserted that, even on the pleadings, Miller failed to state a viable claim. Instead of evaluating the evidence produced during discovery, the district court considered only the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), effectively converting the summary judgment motion into a motion to dismiss.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the district court erred procedurally by disregarding the summary judgment record and resolving the dispute solely under the pleading standard after discovery had closed. The court explained that once discovery is complete and summary judgment is sought, the correct standard requires assessment of the record evidence, not just the pleadings. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying claims or the sufficiency of the evidence. View "Miller v. Lamanna" on Justia Law

A group of bondholders sought to recover principal payments owed on defaulted Argentine sovereign bonds. These investors had previously participated in Argentina’s Tax Credit Program, depositing their bonds with an Argentine trustee, Caja de Valores S.A., in exchange for certificates representing principal and interest. After the Republic failed to pay the principal at maturity, the bondholders initially sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. That court dismissed the case primarily on the ground that, under Argentine law, only the trustee had authority to sue on the bonds, and the Second Circuit affirmed. The bondholders then obtained authorization from an Argentine court to sue and filed a new complaint in New York.The district court again dismissed their claims, mainly for two reasons. First, it found all claims were barred by New York’s six-year statute of limitations for contract actions, holding that the state’s “savings statute” (N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 205(a)) did not apply because the prior dismissal was for lack of personal jurisdiction. It also concluded that tolling provisions in New York’s COVID-era executive orders did not apply absent an equitable showing. Second, the court held that collateral estoppel barred the bondholders from relitigating issues related to standing and jurisdiction previously decided.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It agreed that the savings statute did not apply but held that the COVID-era executive orders tolled the limitations period automatically, without any equitable showing. This made some claims timely (those on the AR16 Bonds) but not others (those on the GD65 Bonds). The Second Circuit further ruled that collateral estoppel did not preclude the bondholders from litigating whether they had authority to sue, and that—under Argentine law, with the new court authorization—they now had such authority. The judgment was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bugliotti v. The Republic of Argentina" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs purchased undeveloped property in Westerly, Rhode Island, in 1999. In 2007, they applied to the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) for permission to install an onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), a prerequisite for building a residence on their land. DEM denied their application because the groundwater table on the property was only five inches below the surface, while regulations required a minimum of twelve inches. The plaintiffs did not pursue an administrative appeal at that time.In 2020, more than a decade after the denial, the plaintiffs filed suit in Washington County Superior Court, seeking declaratory relief and compensation for an alleged regulatory taking under state and federal law. They also asserted that the regulation violated their rights to equal protection and due process. The state moved to dismiss the action, contending it was time-barred, the plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and they lacked standing. The Superior Court agreed, holding that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations, that administrative remedies had not been exhausted, and that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court dismissed the case with prejudice.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed whether the lower court’s dismissal was proper. The Court held that the three-year statute of limitations applied to all claims, and the continuing violation doctrine did not toll the limitations period because DEM’s denial of the permit was a discrete act, not a continuing violation. The Court further found the plaintiffs lacked standing for prospective relief because they did not allege an actual or imminent injury, as any future application might not necessarily be denied. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. View "Majeika v. State of Rhode Island" on Justia Law

A judgment creditor, Green Belt Bank & Trust, sought to collect on a $2.6 million judgment against Mashon Van Mill and others. After initial efforts to collect failed, Green Belt initiated garnishment proceedings against Unverferth Manufacturing Company, alleging that Unverferth owed substantial sums to Mashon for services. Unverferth initially indicated payments were for Mashon’s personal services but later clarified that Mashon worked as an independent contractor, invoicing through “Hill Top Industries,” a name also connected to Mashon. The parties disputed whether funds paid to Hill Top Industries were subject to garnishment and, if so, whether statutory limits applied.The Iowa District Court for Butler County found that Hill Top Industries was not distinct from Mashon, so the funds paid by Unverferth were subject to garnishment. However, the court limited the garnishment amount to 10% of the total payments, applying the cap in Iowa Code section 642.21(1), which restricts garnishment of an employee’s earnings. Green Belt challenged this ruling, arguing that the cap did not apply because Mashon was not an employee, and appealed after the district court denied reconsideration.The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s application of the statutory limit, following its own prior precedent. On further review, the Supreme Court of Iowa held that the statutory garnishment limits in Iowa Code section 642.21(1) apply only to earnings of employees, not independent contractors. The Court reasoned that “employee” has a distinct legal meaning that excludes independent contractors and overruled contrary appellate precedent. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of the Court of Appeals, and reversed in part the district court’s judgment, remanding for entry of a judgment without application of the statutory garnishment cap. View "Green Belt Bank & Trust v. Van Mill" on Justia Law