Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Silvia Cianzio, a retired professor from Iowa State University, filed a lawsuit against the university, the Iowa Board of Regents, and the State of Iowa, alleging wage discrimination in violation of Iowa Code section 216.6A. She claimed that male professors in her department were paid significantly more than female professors, including herself. After conducting a survey on departmental salaries, she discovered that her annual pay was substantially less than that of her male counterparts. She reported these findings to university officials, who dismissed her concerns. Cianzio retired in December 2020 and subsequently filed a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC) in August 2021, followed by a lawsuit in January 2022.The Iowa District Court for Polk County partially granted the university's motion to dismiss, ruling that Cianzio could only seek damages for wage discrimination occurring within the two-year statute of limitations for wage claims, as set forth in Iowa Code section 614.1(8). The court rejected the university's argument that damages should be limited to the 300-day period preceding the filing of her ICRC complaint.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The court held that Iowa Code section 216.15(9)(a)(9) allows a claimant to recover damages for the entire period of wage discrimination, not limited to the two-year statute of limitations or the 300-day period before filing the ICRC complaint. The court emphasized that the statute's language permits recovery for the entire period of discrimination, as long as the complaint is filed within the statutory time frame. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation. View "Cianzio v. Iowa State University" on Justia Law

Regena Strable, a marketing director at Altoona Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, injured her left ankle at work, leading to permanent partial disability. This injury caused further physical injuries to her hip and lower back, as well as mental injuries such as post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety. Strable had previously suffered carpal tunnel injuries to both wrists a decade earlier. After settling with her employer for the ankle injury and the sequela injuries, Strable sought benefits from the Second Injury Fund of Iowa based on her prior carpal tunnel injuries.The deputy commissioner denied Strable’s request for benefits from the Fund, concluding that Iowa Code section 85.64 imposes liability on the Fund only when the second injury is limited to a scheduled injury. The Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner disagreed and granted benefits. On judicial review, the Iowa District Court for Polk County reversed the Commissioner’s decision, agreeing with the deputy commissioner that awarding benefits from the Fund would result in double recovery for Strable.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s order. The court held that the Fund is liable under Iowa Code section 85.64 if the first and second qualifying injuries caused a compensable injury to an enumerated member, regardless of whether the injuries caused other non-enumerated or unscheduled injuries. The court found that the Commissioner erred in calculating the Fund’s liability by not including the employer’s liability for the sequela injuries. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for a determination of the amount and timing of the Fund’s liability, consistent with the court’s opinion. View "Second Injury Fund of Iowa v. Strable" on Justia Law

An employee, Ashley Koester, worked as a mobile crisis counselor for Eyerly-Ball Community Health Services. She believed she was entitled to overtime compensation for her on-call hours and filled out timesheets accordingly, which were approved by her supervisor. Later, her employer objected to the overtime payments and terminated her employment. Koester sued her employer under Iowa Code chapter 91A and for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, claiming she was terminated for asserting her right to overtime pay.The Iowa District Court for Polk County dismissed Koester's claims, ruling that she did not have a claim under chapter 91A because she had been paid in full, including for the overtime hours she claimed. The court also found her statutory claim time-barred. Koester appealed, and the Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of her public policy claim but affirmed the dismissal of her statutory claim.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that Koester did not state a claim for relief under chapter 91A or the common law tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The court held that chapter 91A is a wage collection law, not a generalized fair practices law, and since Koester did not have a claim for unpaid wages, she was not entitled to relief. The court also determined that Koester's public policy claim failed because she was not engaged in protected activity under the statute, as she did not file a complaint or claim unpaid wages before her termination. The Iowa Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the District Court's judgment dismissing Koester's claims. View "Koester v. Eyerly-Ball Community Mental Health Services" on Justia Law

Steven Fustolo purchased a rental investment unit in Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009, taking out a mortgage with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as nominee for Union Capital Mortgage Business Trust. The mortgage was reassigned six times, and Fustolo defaulted on the loan. He sought a declaratory judgment that the current holders, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation as Trustee of SCRT 2019-2 (the Trust) and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS), had no right to foreclose because they did not validly hold the mortgage or the accompanying promissory note. Fustolo also claimed defamation, slander of title, unfair business practices, violation of Massachusetts's Debt Collection Act, and a violation of Regulation X of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) by SPS.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed Fustolo's claims, except for one count challenging the adequacy of a notice letter, which was later settled. The court found that the Trust validly held both the mortgage and the note, and that Fustolo's state law claims hinged on the incorrect assertion that the Trust did not have the right to foreclose. The court also dismissed the RESPA claim, stating that Fustolo failed to specify which provision of RESPA was violated and that SPS had responded to his notice of error.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the Trust validly held the mortgage and the note, as the note was indorsed in blank and in the Trust's possession. The court also found that MERS had the authority to assign the mortgage despite Union Capital's dissolution. Additionally, the court ruled that Fustolo's RESPA claim failed because challenges to the merits of a servicer's evaluation of a loss mitigation application do not relate to the servicing of the loan and are not covered errors under RESPA. View "Fustolo v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc." on Justia Law

Jorge Baez sued BayMark Detoxification Services, Inc., alleging disability discrimination under Massachusetts law, claiming BayMark Detox was his former employer. Baez was repeatedly informed that he had sued the wrong party but did not amend his complaint in time. BayMark Detox moved for summary judgment, asserting it was never Baez's employer. Baez then requested to amend his complaint to name the correct employer, but the district court granted summary judgment to BayMark Detox, denied Baez's Rule 60(b) motion for relief, and ordered Baez to pay costs.Baez initially worked for Community Health Care, Inc. (CHC), which was acquired by BayMark Health Services, Inc. (BHS). During the COVID-19 pandemic, Baez worked from home but was later terminated after an audit revealed billing errors. Baez filed a discrimination complaint against BayMark Detox, which was removed to federal court. BayMark Detox, a separate entity from CHC, stated it never employed Baez. The district court set a deadline for amending pleadings, which Baez missed.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment to BayMark Detox, finding no evidence that BayMark Detox was Baez's employer. The court denied Baez's request to amend his complaint, citing his failure to show good cause for the delay. The court also denied Baez's Rule 60(b) motion, rejecting the argument that Massachusetts procedural rules should apply. The court awarded costs to BayMark Detox.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, agreeing that Baez failed to name the correct employer and did not demonstrate good cause for amending his complaint late. The court also upheld the award of costs to BayMark Detox. View "Baez v. BayMark Detoxification Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves Andris Pukke, Peter Baker, and John Usher, who were found liable for violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and a permanent injunction from a prior fraud case. They were involved in a real estate scam, selling lots in a development called "Sanctuary Belize" through deceptive practices. The district court issued an equitable monetary judgment of $120.2 million for consumer redress, imposed an asset freeze, and appointed a receiver.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland found the defendants liable after a bench trial and issued permanent injunctions against them. The court also held them in contempt for violating a prior judgment in a related case, ordering them to pay the same $120.2 million in consumer redress. The defendants appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, except for vacating the monetary judgment to the extent it relied on FTC Act Section 13(b).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision to maintain the receivership and asset freeze. The court held that the receivership and asset freeze were necessary to effectuate the injunctive relief and ensure that the defendants did not continue to profit from their deceptive practices. The court also found that the contempt judgment supported maintaining the receivership and asset freeze until the judgment was satisfied. The court emphasized the defendants' history of deceptive conduct and the need for a professional receiver to manage and distribute the assets to defrauded consumers. The judgment was affirmed. View "Federal Trade Commission v. Pukke" on Justia Law

Chris Welsh, representing CAL SD, LLC, entered into a purchase agreement with Interwest Leasing, LLC to buy commercial real estate, with a $30,000 earnest money deposit. Welsh passed away before closing, and CAL SD refused to close. Interwest sold the property to another buyer for the same price but did not return the earnest money. CAL SD filed a declaratory judgment action to recover the deposit, claiming the agreement was void due to their inability to obtain financing.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Pennington County, South Dakota, treated the declaratory judgment as a breach of contract action and set it for a jury trial. The jury found in favor of CAL SD, and the court ordered the return of the earnest money deposit. Interwest appealed, arguing the action was equitable and should not have been decided by a jury, and also claimed the court gave erroneous jury instructions.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the declaratory judgment action was legal, not equitable, because it sought to enforce contractual rights under the purchase agreement, which was void if financing was not obtained. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to submit the case to a jury for a binding verdict, as the issue was whether CAL SD breached the contract by failing to secure financing. The court concluded that the jury's determination that CAL SD was unable to obtain financing rendered the purchase agreement void, entitling CAL SD to the return of the earnest money deposit. View "Cal SD, LLC v. Interwest Leasing, LLC" on Justia Law

Erik Schnibbe, an attorney, worked at the law firm of Magleby, Cataxinos, and Greenwood. After a client of the firm won a large damages award, the firm paid Schnibbe $1 million for his share of the contingency fee via direct deposit. Schnibbe believed he was promised a greater share and kept the $1 million. Years later, after leaving the firm, he sued for the additional money he claimed he was owed.The Defendants, including the firm and two of its attorneys, moved for summary judgment, arguing that Schnibbe had accepted the $1 million as full settlement of his share of the contingency fee, thus barring his claims under the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment to the Defendants.The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that all three elements of accord and satisfaction were met: an unliquidated claim or bona fide dispute over the amount due, a payment offered as full settlement of the entire dispute, and acceptance of the payment as full settlement of the dispute. The court focused on the acceptance element, determining that Schnibbe's retention of the $1 million for four years without attempting to return it or registering a protest constituted acceptance of the payment as full settlement.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case on certiorari. The court agreed with the lower courts that Schnibbe's conduct indicated acceptance of the payment as full settlement. The court clarified that acceptance could be inferred from the totality of the circumstances, including the creditor's retention of the funds, even if the payment was received passively via direct deposit. The court held that Schnibbe's knowing retention of the $1 million for several years, without attempting to return it, constituted acceptance of the proposed accord as a matter of law. The court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals. View "Magleby v. Schnibbe" on Justia Law

A former police officer, the petitioner, sought to annul the Comptroller's decision denying him accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits. The petitioner was injured while on desk duty when his rolling chair tipped due to a rut in the floor, causing him to grab his desk and injure his shoulder and neck. He applied for ADR benefits, claiming the injury was accidental.The Comptroller denied the application, concluding that the petitioner could have reasonably anticipated the hazard. The petitioner testified that he was aware of the ruts in the floor and had been working desk duty for months. Photographs documented the floor's condition. The Comptroller determined that the injury was not the result of an "accident" as defined for ADR benefits.The petitioner challenged this decision through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The Appellate Division confirmed the Comptroller's determination and dismissed the proceeding, stating that an event is not an accident if it could have been reasonably anticipated. One Justice dissented, arguing that the "reasonably anticipated" standard was inconsistent with precedent and that the chair tipping was a sudden, unexpected event.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Division's judgment. The court held that a precipitating event that could or should have been reasonably anticipated by a person in the claimant's circumstances is not an "accident" for ADR benefits. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Comptroller's determination that the petitioner could have reasonably anticipated the near-fall from his desk chair, given his familiarity with the ruts in the floor and the documented condition of the precinct floor. The judgment was affirmed with costs. View "Bodenmiller v. DiNapoli" on Justia Law

Dionicio Rodriguez, an employee of SIR Electric LLC (SIR), was injured while working and filed for workers' compensation benefits under SIR's policy with Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company (Hartford). After receiving benefits, Rodriguez filed a personal injury lawsuit against SIR, alleging negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and intentional wrongdoing. SIR requested Hartford to defend against the lawsuit, but Hartford refused, citing policy exclusions. SIR then filed a third-party complaint against Hartford, claiming wrongful disclaimer of defense coverage.The trial court granted Hartford's motion to dismiss SIR's complaint, ruling that the policy excluded intent-based claims. SIR's motion for reconsideration and to amend its complaint, arguing that the policy's enhanced intentional injury exclusion (EII exclusion) violated public policy, was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that Hartford has no duty to defend SIR. The court determined that Rodriguez's claims of negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness are subject to the workers' compensation exclusivity bar and are not covered under Part One of the policy. These claims are also excluded from coverage under Part Two of the policy. Additionally, Rodriguez's claims of intentional wrongdoing are excluded under the policy's EII exclusion.The court concluded that the trial judge properly denied SIR's motion to amend its third-party complaint, as the EII exclusion does not violate public policy. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's judgment, upholding the dismissal of SIR's third-party complaint against Hartford. View "Rodriguez v. Shelbourne Spring, LLC" on Justia Law