Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A county board created a port authority in 2003 to encourage economic development, administering a business park on contaminated land formerly operated by a lumber company. In 2022, the port authority entered into agreements with a private company to clean up and potentially develop the property, culminating in the sale of 105 acres for $1.6 million, with a credit for cleanup costs. The plaintiff alleged that between May 2022 and April 2025, the port authority failed to provide adequate public notice of its meetings or opportunities for public participation regarding the land transactions, in violation of Montana’s open meeting and right to participate laws.The Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, reviewed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which sought to halt any actions pursuant to the port authority’s decisions during the contested period and to void the land sale and related contracts. The District Court denied the injunction, reasoning that the relief sought would not merely enforce open meeting laws but would invalidate completed transactions and disrupt the property’s new ownership and development. The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, particularly given the significant passage of time and changes to the property. The court did not resolve contested factual issues about notice or participation, nor did it make any final rulings on the underlying claims.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court manifestly abused its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the District Court did not abuse its discretion because the plaintiff failed to establish all required elements for preliminary injunctive relief. The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower court had not decided the merits of the open meeting law claims and left those questions for future proceedings. View "Torgison v. Lincoln County" on Justia Law

The case concerns a legal dispute between two individuals after one party filed a complaint alleging various claims such as breach of contract and misrepresentation. The defendant, representing himself, responded with a cross-complaint. The central procedural issue arose when the trial court granted an anti-SLAPP motion in favor of the plaintiff, dismissed the cross-complaint with prejudice, and awarded attorney’s fees to the plaintiff. The defendant challenged this outcome, asserting that procedural irregularities rendered the orders void, including claims about the improper filing and service of the anti-SLAPP order, as well as arguments about judicial disqualification and standing.After the trial court’s initial rulings, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, previously reviewed the matter in an earlier appeal and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the cross-complaint and the award of attorney’s fees. The court also determined that the plaintiff was entitled to additional attorney’s fees incurred on appeal, with the amount to be set on remand. On remand, the trial court awarded further fees to the plaintiff. The defendant again appealed, raising many of the same arguments previously rejected, as well as new procedural objections.In this second appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, found all of the defendant’s arguments baseless and affirmed the attorney’s fee award. The court held that the defendant’s attempt to relitigate final decisions was frivolous and imposed sanctions against him for pursuing a meritless appeal. The court further ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees for the current appeal and imposed a $10,000 sanction payable to the clerk of the court, remanding the case for the trial court to determine the precise amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded. View "Zand v. Sukumar" on Justia Law

A U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent was denied boarding an international flight in 2019 and subsequently learned, after following the Department of Homeland Security’s redress process, that he was listed on the federal government’s No Fly List. He then sought to challenge his inclusion both on the No Fly List and the broader Terrorist Watchlist, which contains the names of individuals reasonably suspected of terrorism. Placement on the No Fly List is dependent on inclusion in the Terrorist Watchlist. The individual alleged ongoing travel and immigration-related harms due to his watchlist designations.He filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, raising constitutional and statutory claims and seeking removal from both lists. The district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the No Fly List claims due to the statutory requirement that such challenges proceed in the circuit court under 49 U.S.C. § 46110, and transferred those claims accordingly. The district court retained the Terrorist Watchlist claims under general federal question jurisdiction. After further briefing, the district court dismissed the remaining Terrorist Watchlist claims for lack of Article III standing, finding it could not redress the alleged injuries because removing the plaintiff from the Terrorist Watchlist would necessarily set aside the TSA Administrator’s order keeping him on the No Fly List—an action reserved for the circuit court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed. The court held that while the plaintiff suffered concrete injuries from his inclusion on the Terrorist Watchlist, the district court lacked authority to redress those injuries because any effective remedy would encroach on the circuit court’s exclusive jurisdiction to review and set aside TSA No Fly List orders under § 46110. Thus, the district court properly dismissed the case for lack of standing. View "Khalid v. Blanche" on Justia Law

The case concerns an individual who was injured after tripping over the base of a removed bus stop sign on a public sidewalk in Manitou Springs, Colorado, on August 26, 2021. The injured party promptly notified Manitou Springs of her injury as required by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA), which mandates notice to the liable public entity within 182 days of discovering the injury. Manitou Springs did not disclose its lack of responsibility for the sidewalk until April 2023, well after the statutory period had expired, when it told the claimant that Colorado Springs was responsible under an intergovernmental agreement. The claimant then notified Colorado Springs forty days later, but this notice was well outside the 182-day window.After the claimant brought suit against both cities for premises liability and negligence, Colorado Springs moved to dismiss, arguing that the notice was untimely under the CGIA and that equitable defenses were unavailable. The District Court denied this motion, holding that the notice period should have started when the claimant learned of Colorado Springs’ potential liability, not on the date of injury. The District Court reasoned that the claimant could not have known about the intergovernmental agreement without disclosure from Manitou Springs and thus had acted diligently.The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the CGIA’s 182-day notice period is jurisdictional, cannot be tolled or waived, and begins when the injury is discovered, regardless of knowledge of the liable public entity. The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed this judgment, holding that strict compliance with the notice provision was required and that the notice period began on the date of injury. Because the claimant’s notice to Colorado Springs was untimely, dismissal was required. View "Mostellar v. City of Colo. Springs" on Justia Law

A former student at the University of Southern Indiana was accused of sexual assault during the 2020–21 academic year. After a hearing, a university panel found the alleged victim’s account more credible than the student’s, noting her consistency over time, and concluded that the student committed rape and forcible fondling. The student was suspended for three semesters and did not return to the university. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against the university and other defendants, alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title IX, deprivation of due process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. During discovery, the student learned of undisclosed records that suggested his account may have been consistent over time, contrary to the panel’s finding.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. In the course of the litigation, a magistrate judge ordered the student to proceed using his real name, not a pseudonym. The student objected, but the district judge overruled the objection, though the district court stayed its order pending this appeal. The student filed multiple appeals, which were consolidated for argument.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the student’s use of a pseudonym. The court reaffirmed the strong presumption that adult parties litigate under their real names in federal court and found that the student did not present sufficient evidence of a substantial risk of physical harm or retaliation to justify use of a pseudonym. The court declined to broaden the standard to include mental health risks or to consider the merits of the underlying claims in deciding the pseudonym issue. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. View "Doe v University of Southern Indiana" on Justia Law

In this matter, a member of the University of Alabama’s men’s basketball team, Kai Spears, brought suit against The New York Times Company after it published articles erroneously identifying him as the unidentified passenger in a car at the scene of a high-profile shooting. The Times based its reporting on information from two confidential sources. Spears, who was not in the car, alleges that The Times failed to use reasonable care in publishing false and damaging statements about him. During litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Spears sought discovery to uncover the identities of the sources and related information. The Times resisted, invoking Alabama’s “shield statute,” which protects journalists from being compelled to reveal confidential sources.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Alabama concerning the scope of the state’s shield statute. The first question asked whether the statute protects the identity of a source when information is published online. However, as Spears conceded that the print publication of the article triggered the statute’s application, the Supreme Court of Alabama declined to answer this question, finding it irrelevant to the case.The Supreme Court of Alabama addressed the second certified question, which asked whether the shield statute protects any and all information that could reasonably lead to the identification of a protected source. The Court held that Alabama’s shield statute does not extend so broadly. Instead, it protects only information that would inevitably reveal the identity of a confidential source. Thus, information that could merely “reasonably lead” to the identification of a source is not covered. The Court declined to expand the statute’s protections beyond its plain language and expressly limited the privilege to “source-identifying” information whose disclosure would make identifying the source unavoidable. View "The New York Times Company v. Spears" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, three organizations representing millions of Americans, challenged the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) decision to grant personnel from the newly created U.S. DOGE Service access to non-anonymized, highly sensitive personal information held by the SSA. This access was authorized following an executive order charging DOGE with improving government technology. Career officials at the SSA resigned in protest, and a new acting administrator approved DOGE’s access. The plaintiffs argued that merely providing this access, regardless of actual misuse or disclosure, was itself unlawful and an intrusion upon the privacy of their members.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland conducted extensive hearings and granted a preliminary injunction blocking DOGE’s access to the data. The Supreme Court subsequently stayed this injunction, pending appellate and possible further Supreme Court review. The case came before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had Article III standing, as the unauthorized access to their sensitive information closely resembled the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion. However, the Fourth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs had not established that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, as required by the second factor of the Winter test for preliminary injunctions. The court reasoned that monetary damages and reparative permanent injunctions were potentially available remedies, and the record did not show that new or additional irreparable harm would occur during the litigation. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The main holding is that the preliminary injunction was vacated because the plaintiffs did not show likely irreparable harm. View "American Federation of State, County and Municipal v. Social Security Administration" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization, after being represented by several law firms over multiple years in a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, was awarded attorneys’ fees by the district court under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The total fee award was almost $789,000. The various law firms that had represented the nonprofit at different times—specifically, a set of former attorneys and the Bopp Law Firm—disputed how much each was entitled to from the award. Both the former attorneys and Bopp asserted they had an equitable charging lien entitling them to direct payment from the fee award, rather than requiring payment first be made to the client.After the resolution of the underlying claims, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia found that the former attorneys had a valid charging lien but denied Bopp’s motion to enforce its own lien. The district court reasoned, based on Indiana law (per a choice-of-law provision in Bopp's fee agreement), that Bopp had to show an agreement with the client that its compensation would come from the fund itself. The court concluded Bopp failed to establish such an agreement and thus did not have a valid lien.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the district court applied the wrong legal standard under Indiana law. Indiana law recognizes two independent ways an attorney may establish an equitable charging lien: either by securing the fund for the client or by an agreement with the client to be paid from the fund. The Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Bopp satisfied either prong and for potential resolution of lien priority and the calculation of amounts owed. View "True the Vote, Inc. v. IRS" on Justia Law

An Irish company leased two airplanes to an Indian airline under agreements designating English courts as the forum for resolving disputes. After the airline failed to keep up with lease payments, the lessor sued in England and secured a monetary judgment. Seeking to enforce that judgment in Washington, the lessor filed a recognition action in King County Superior Court, claiming the airline had interests in personal property within the state but did not identify specific assets.The airline challenged the action in King County Superior Court, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction because it had no contacts, assets, or business in Washington. The superior court denied the airline’s motion to dismiss, holding that jurisdiction was not required to recognize a foreign-country judgment under Washington’s Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act. The court ultimately entered summary judgment recognizing the English judgment and ordering payment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that neither statute nor constitutional law required the creditor to show personal jurisdiction or a property nexus for recognition of such a judgment.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington granted review and reversed the lower courts. The court held that, under chapter 6.40A RCW, a judgment creditor must establish either general or specific jurisdiction over the debtor or, in the absence of such jurisdiction, demonstrate that the debtor has property within Washington before a foreign-country money judgment may be recognized. The court found that recognition actions under the Act are not purely ministerial and require adjudicative jurisdiction. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the debtor has property in Washington sufficient to support jurisdiction. View "Alterna Aircraft V B Ltd. v. SpiceJet Ltd." on Justia Law

A man filed suit in 2017 against three individuals and a club, alleging that he was sexually abused as a child between 1993 and 2000. He claimed that the abuse caused him numerous injuries but asserted that he did not learn of the connection between the abuse and his injuries until 2014, after receiving psychotherapy. The defendants argued that his claims were barred by the statute of limitations, contending that he was aware of the connection between the abuse and his injuries before reaching adulthood, based on deposition testimony and documents such as statements the plaintiff made to police.The Circuit Court of Sussex County considered deposition transcripts and documentary evidence submitted by the parties, with no live testimony presented at the hearing. The circuit court found that the plaintiff knew of the causal relationship between the abuse and his injuries before he reached the age of majority in 2002. Thus, the court determined that his claims accrued when he became an adult, and were barred by the two-year statute of limitations that expired in 2004. The court granted the defendants’ pleas in bar, dismissing the claims.The Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed this decision, holding that, since only documentary evidence had been presented, the circuit court’s factual findings were not entitled to deference. It reviewed the matter de novo, found disputed material facts, and concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate. On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia held that the Court of Appeals applied the wrong standard of review. The Supreme Court clarified that factual findings based on deposition evidence are entitled to substantial deference unless plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the circuit court’s judgment, holding that the claims were time-barred. View "Stevens v. Jurnigan" on Justia Law