Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Michael Reilly approached William G. Harris III, a developmentally disabled individual, to purchase his home for $30,000, significantly below its appraised value. Harris, unable to understand the value of money, signed the contract. Reilly attempted to finalize the sale but was informed by the Sheltered Workshop, where Harris was a client, of Harris's disability and was denied further contact with him. Harris passed away in December 2021, and Reilly sued Harris's Estate for specific performance of the contract. The Estate counterclaimed, alleging negligence, violations of the Montana Consumer Protection Act (CPA), and sought punitive damages.The Second Judicial District Court, Butte-Silver Bow County, dismissed Reilly's complaint without imposing sanctions and denied the Estate's request for treble damages and attorney fees. The jury awarded the Estate $28,900 in compensatory damages and $45,000 in punitive damages. Reilly moved to dismiss his complaint just before the trial, which the District Court granted, but the Estate objected, seeking sanctions for the late dismissal. The District Court did not rule on the objection. The jury found Reilly exploited Harris and violated the CPA, awarding damages accordingly. The District Court later denied the Estate's request for treble damages and attorney fees, citing the substantial jury award as sufficient.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the District Court abused its discretion by dismissing Reilly's complaint without imposing sanctions, given the late timing and the Estate's incurred costs. However, it affirmed the District Court's denial of treble damages and attorney fees under the CPA, agreeing that the jury's award was substantial. The Supreme Court affirmed the compensatory and punitive damages awarded to the Estate and remanded the case to the District Court to award the Estate its full costs and attorney fees incurred before Reilly's motion to dismiss. View "Harris Estate v. Reilly" on Justia Law

A fifty-nine-year-old General Manager (GM) at a Chili’s restaurant in Nashville, Tennessee, was terminated and replaced by a thirty-three-year-old with no managerial experience. The employer, Brinker International, Inc., claimed the termination was due to the GM creating a toxic "culture" and not "living the Chili’s way," despite the restaurant being one of the top performers in the market. The GM alleged that the termination was due to age discrimination, as he was the oldest manager in the region and believed Brinker was systematically replacing older employees with younger ones.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted summary judgment in favor of Brinker, accepting the company's explanation of "culture" as a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination. The court found that the GM could not sufficiently rebut this explanation to show it was pretext for age discrimination. The court also granted in part and denied in part the GM's motion for sanctions due to Brinker’s spoliation of evidence, awarding fees and costs but not excluding the TMR Report, which documented the termination decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the TMR Report could not be authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 and was therefore inadmissible. The court vacated the district court’s order on sanctions and instructed it to consider whether additional sanctions beyond fees and costs were appropriate. The appellate court also reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Brinker, finding that the GM had provided sufficient evidence to rebut Brinker’s explanation and create a genuine issue of material fact regarding age discrimination. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the GM’s motion for summary judgment. View "Kean v. Brinker Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

A group of staffing companies in Texas challenged a memorandum issued by the former General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Jennifer Abruzzo. The memorandum outlined a plan to urge the NLRB to reverse its holding in a previous case, Babcock, which allowed employers to compel employees to attend meetings where they were urged to reject union representation. The staffing companies argued that the memorandum violated their First Amendment rights by restricting their speech about unionization and sought an injunction and declaratory judgment against its enforcement.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, stating that the plaintiffs were challenging unreviewable prosecutorial decisions by the NLRB General Counsel, that the NLRA's scheme precluded jurisdiction, and that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The staffing companies appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its dismissal and that they had standing because the memorandum applied to them and was a final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the staffing companies lacked standing. The court noted that the plaintiffs had not provided evidence of a credible threat of enforcement of the memorandum causing them direct injury. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate an intent to engage in conduct regulated by the memorandum, as there was no known unionization attempt at their businesses. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish a credible threat of enforcement or a substantial risk of future injury.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case for lack of standing. View "Burnett Specialists v. Cowen" on Justia Law

Ammar al-Baluchi, a Pakistani national, has been detained at the U.S. naval base in Guantánamo Bay since 2006. He is accused of supporting the September 11, 2001, attacks as a senior member of al-Qaeda. In 2008, al-Baluchi filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court. In 2022, he moved to compel the government to convene a Mixed Medical Commission to assess his eligibility for repatriation due to alleged torture and resulting serious health issues. The district court denied his request, ruling that detainees captured during non-international armed conflicts are not entitled to such examinations under the Third Geneva Convention or Army Regulation 190-8.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially stayed al-Baluchi’s habeas case pending the outcome of his military commission trial. After temporarily lifting the stay to consider his motion for a Mixed Medical Commission, the court denied the motion, leading al-Baluchi to appeal the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s nonfinal order. The court found that al-Baluchi did not demonstrate that the denial of his motion had the practical effect of denying injunctive relief or that it caused serious or irreparable harm requiring immediate review. The court noted that even if a Mixed Medical Commission found al-Baluchi eligible for repatriation, the government retained discretion to delay repatriation until the completion of his military commission proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Al-Baluchi v. Hegseth" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over the sale of real property. Patricia Ann Scott, the seller, previously sued real estate agent Kaylee Schnelle for professional negligence, alleging mishandling of the sale. Schnelle's motions for summary judgment and directed verdict were denied, and the jury found in her favor. Subsequently, Schnelle filed a malicious prosecution claim against Scott and her attorneys, arguing they lacked probable cause and conspired against her. The defendants moved to dismiss, citing the prior denials as evidence of probable cause.The district court denied the motion to dismiss, stating that the previous denials were factors to consider but did not conclusively establish probable cause. The court found Schnelle's allegations sufficient to support her claim. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing that the denials did not create a rebuttable presumption of probable cause.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case to determine if such denials should create a rebuttable presumption of probable cause. The court concluded that while the denials are factors in the probable cause analysis, they do not create a rebuttable presumption. The court emphasized the need for a careful, case-by-case analysis rather than a bright-line rule. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that the denials of summary judgment and directed verdict motions do not establish probable cause as a matter of law. View "Cantafio v. Schnelle" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant, Brendan Linton, was riding his bicycle on a heavily trafficked state highway in Butler Township, Pennsylvania. The highway had one lane of travel in each direction, with a speed limit varying from 45 to 55 mph. Pennsylvania State Trooper Joshua Osche observed Linton riding his bicycle at speeds significantly lower than the posted speed limits, causing a buildup of traffic behind him. Despite multiple vehicles successfully passing Linton, Trooper Osche eventually initiated a traffic stop, citing Linton for impeding the normal and reasonable movement of traffic under Section 3364(b)(2) of the Vehicle Code.The Court of Common Pleas of Butler County found Linton guilty of violating Section 3364(b)(2), concluding that he should have moved to the berm area to allow faster-moving traffic to pass. The court imposed a $25 fine. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment, agreeing that Linton's failure to use the berm constituted a violation of the statute.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case to determine whether Section 3364(b)(2) requires pedalcyclists to leave the roadway whenever faster-moving traffic approaches. The Court concluded that the statute calls for a fact-bound assessment of reasonableness, taking all relevant considerations into account. The Court held that there may be circumstances under which a factfinder could determine that the "reasonable efforts" a pedalcycle operator must exert include temporarily leaving the roadway. However, the Court rejected the rigid interpretations of both the appellant and the lower courts, emphasizing that the statute does not mandate pedalcyclists to always vacate the roadway for faster-moving traffic.The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, instructing the lower court to reconsider the sufficiency of the evidence using the proper legal standard. View "Commonwealth v. Linton" on Justia Law

Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. applied to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) for an increase in natural gas distribution rates and approval of an alternative-rate plan. The Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel (OCC) filed an application for rehearing, which PUCO initially extended through a tolling order. However, following a decision in a related case, In re Application of Moraine Wind, L.L.C., it was determined that PUCO lacked the authority to issue such tolling orders, meaning the OCC’s application for rehearing was denied by operation of law after 30 days.The OCC did not appeal the denial by operation of law but instead filed a second application for rehearing challenging PUCO’s tolling order practice. After the Moraine Wind decision, PUCO journalized an entry on September 4, 2024, acknowledging the denial by operation of law and closing the case. The OCC then filed a third application for rehearing, which PUCO denied on October 2, 2024. The OCC subsequently filed a notice of appeal on October 25, 2024.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and denied Duke Energy’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that under R.C. 4903.11, the OCC’s appeal was timely because it was filed within 60 days of PUCO’s journalized entry on September 4, 2024, which constituted an “entry upon the journal of the commission of the order denying an application for rehearing.” Thus, the OCC properly invoked the court’s jurisdiction, and the appeal was allowed to proceed. View "In re Application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc." on Justia Law

In March 2020, Jose Gonzalez visited a Walgreens store in Austin, Texas. An unidentified customer had clogged the toilet in the men's restroom and was given a plunger by a Walgreens employee to fix it. While the customer was attempting to unclog the toilet, Gonzalez entered the restroom and slipped on water that had accumulated on the floor. Gonzalez sued Walgreens for his injuries.The case was initially filed in Texas state court but was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas based on diversity jurisdiction. Gonzalez asserted a theory of vicarious liability and a claim for premises liability against Walgreens. The district court dismissed the vicarious liability theory and denied Walgreens's motion for summary judgment on the premises liability claim. After Gonzalez presented his case at trial, Walgreens moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), which the district court granted, finding that Walgreens had no actual or constructive knowledge of the wet floor. Gonzalez's motion for a new trial was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's JMOL, holding that no reasonable jury could find that Walgreens had actual or constructive knowledge of the wet floor. The court found that Gonzalez failed to provide sufficient evidence that Walgreens knew or should have known about the hazardous condition. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Gonzalez's vicarious liability theory, stating that the allegations constituted a premises liability claim, not a basis for vicarious liability. The court concluded that Walgreens did not have a policy or practice that it knew routinely created an unreasonable risk of harm, distinguishing this case from others where such knowledge was established. View "Gonzalez v. Walgreen" on Justia Law

A group called Idahoans United for Women and Families filed a petition seeking writs of certiorari and mandamus against the Idaho Division of Financial Management (DFM), the Idaho Attorney General, and the Idaho Secretary of State. The petition concerns the fiscal impact statement (FIS) and ballot titles for a citizen initiative titled the “Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act.” Idahoans United argued that the FIS and ballot titles did not comply with Idaho law and requested the court to either certify their proposed versions or order the respondents to prepare new compliant versions.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court dismissed the petition against the Secretary of State, finding that Idahoans United failed to properly invoke the court's original jurisdiction against him. However, the court partially granted the writ of mandamus against DFM, concluding that the FIS did not substantially comply with Idaho Code section 34-1812 due to a lack of a reasonable basis for its estimated fiscal impacts, unclear and conflicting statements, and unnecessary legal terms. The court also partially granted the writ of mandamus against the Attorney General, finding that the short ballot title did not substantially comply with Idaho Code section 34-1809 because it failed to capture all distinctive features of the initiative. However, the court found that the long ballot title substantially complied with the statutory requirements.The Idaho Supreme Court retained jurisdiction and ordered DFM to provide a new FIS and the Attorney General to provide a new short ballot title by June 23, 2025. The court denied the request for attorney fees, noting that both parties prevailed in part. View "Idahoans United for Women and Families v. Labrador" on Justia Law

Steve Kovachevich, a homebuyer, was required to purchase private mortgage insurance (PMI) when he took out a mortgage with a down payment of less than 20%. After a year, he requested his mortgage servicer, LoanCare, to cancel his PMI. LoanCare initially denied the request, stating he had not paid down enough of his mortgage to qualify for cancellation under the Homeowners Protection Act (HPA). However, LoanCare agreed to voluntarily cancel the PMI upon meeting certain conditions, which Kovachevich fulfilled. Subsequently, he sought a refund of the prepaid PMI premiums from the mortgage insurer, National Mortgage Insurance Corporation (NMIC), but was denied.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed Kovachevich’s claim under the HPA, ruling that he was not entitled to a refund of unearned premiums under § 4902(f) because his PMI was canceled voluntarily and not under the statutory benchmarks of the HPA. The court also dismissed his state-law claims of unjust enrichment and conversion, stating it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Kovachevich’s HPA claim, agreeing that § 4902(f) only mandates refunds for PMI canceled under the statutory benchmarks, not for voluntary cancellations. However, the appellate court vacated the dismissal of the state-law claims and remanded them to the district court to consider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. View "Kovachevich v. National Mortgage Insurance Corporation" on Justia Law