Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

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

In the fall of 2025, federal immigration authorities increased enforcement activities in Chicago through “Operation Midway Blitz,” prompting protests near an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Broadview, Illinois. Protesters and journalists alleged that federal officers from ICE, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights by deploying tear gas and other chemical agents without justification. The plaintiffs described instances of excessive force and sought injunctive relief to stop such practices.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a temporary restraining order and later a broad preliminary injunction that applied districtwide, enjoining all federal law enforcement officers and agencies from using certain crowd control tactics. The court also certified a plaintiff class and required ongoing compliance reporting from DHS officials. The government appealed the preliminary injunction, arguing it was overbroad and infringed on separation of powers principles. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stayed the injunction, citing its expansive scope and concerns over standing.Subsequently, as the enforcement operation ended and no further constitutional violations were reported, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the case. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice and decertified the class, contrary to the plaintiffs’ request for dismissal with prejudice. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that extraordinary circumstances warranted vacating the district court’s preliminary injunction. The Seventh Circuit held that vacatur was appropriate because the case had become moot and to prevent the now-unreviewable injunction from producing adverse legal consequences in future litigation. The court vacated the injunction and dismissed the appeal. View "Chicago Headline Club v. Noem" on Justia Law

A married couple had a child in Las Vegas, Nevada. Shortly after the child’s birth, the mother and child traveled to Canada, initially intending a temporary visit for a funeral. Their stay in Canada was extended unexpectedly due to circumstances including a home repair in Nevada and temporary employment, but the mother continued regular communications with the father and intended to return. During the extended stay, the couple’s relationship deteriorated. The mother filed for custody in a Canadian court, and the father, also in Canada, initiated a Hague Convention proceeding seeking the child’s return to Nevada. The Canadian court determined that the child was a habitual resident of Canada and denied the return request. The father appealed unsuccessfully and participated in the Canadian custody proceedings, contesting jurisdiction.After the failed Hague petition, the father filed for divorce, child custody, and child support in Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court. That court denied his motions, determining it lacked jurisdiction since significant proceedings were already underway in Canada and concluding Nevada was not the child’s home state. The father appealed, arguing that the district court wrongly declined jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the matter. It held that under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), the child’s absence from Nevada was temporary; thus, Nevada was the child’s home state for jurisdictional purposes when the custody action was filed. The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court’s order, concluding that Nevada did have home state jurisdiction. However, due to the Canadian court’s pending custody proceedings and the Hague determination, the Nevada court should consider whether to defer jurisdiction to Canada. The Supreme Court of Nevada remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to attempt communication with the Canadian court and to allow briefing on the most appropriate forum before determining whether to decline jurisdiction. View "Gill v. Gill" on Justia Law

A business agreement was made in early 2020 for the rental of a yacht for an event. The agreement involved a payment of $18,280, which was to cover a deposit and a down payment toward the rental fee. The event was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the party that made the payment requested a refund. The yacht provider did not return the funds. The party seeking the refund sued under several theories, including unjust enrichment and breach of contract.After mandatory arbitration resulted in an award for the plaintiff, the defendant requested a trial de novo, and the matter proceeded under Nevada’s Short Trial Program. A short trial judge rendered a proposed judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant objected to this proposed judgment, but the short trial judge, after consulting with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Office, ruled on the objection and later denied the defendant’s NRCP 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment, or for a new trial. The district court then entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, apparently approving the short trial judge’s proposed judgment.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether a short trial judge has authority to adjudicate objections to a proposed judgment and post-judgment NRCP 59 motions. The court held that under the plain language of NSTR 3(d), only the district court—not a short trial judge—may review and adjudicate objections to proposed judgments and NRCP 59 motions. The court found that the short trial judge exceeded her authority by ruling on these matters. The Supreme Court of Nevada vacated the district court’s judgment and the short trial judge’s post-judgment orders, remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "VEGAS AQUA, LLC VS. JUPITOR CORP." on Justia Law