Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A woman who immigrated from China to the United States and later became a U.S. citizen founded an educational institution that participated in a Department of Defense tuition program. In 2010, the FBI began investigating her for statements made on immigration forms, conducting interviews, searches, and seizing personal and business materials. Although the U.S. Attorney’s Office ultimately declined to file charges, Fox News later published reports about her, including confidential materials from the FBI investigation. These reports cited anonymous sources and included documents and photographs seized during the FBI’s search. Following the reports, the Department of Defense terminated her institution’s participation in the tuition program, resulting in significant financial losses.She filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the FBI and other federal agencies, alleging violations of the Privacy Act due to the unauthorized disclosure of her records. During discovery, she was unable to identify the source of the leak despite extensive efforts. She then subpoenaed a Fox News journalist, who authored the reports, to reveal her confidential source. The journalist invoked a qualified First Amendment reporter’s privilege. The district court found that the plaintiff had met the requirements to overcome this privilege—demonstrating both the centrality of the information to her case and exhaustion of alternative sources—and ordered the journalist to testify. When the journalist refused, the court held her in civil contempt.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s orders. The appellate court held that, under its precedents, a qualified First Amendment reporter’s privilege may be overcome in civil cases if the information sought is crucial to the case and all reasonable alternative sources have been exhausted. The court also declined to recognize a broader federal common law reporter’s privilege. View "Chen v. FBI" on Justia Law

A married couple, both employees of UT-Battelle, objected to their employer’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on religious grounds, specifically because of their belief that the vaccines’ development involved the use of fetal cell lines from abortions, which conflicted with their Christian faith. UT-Battelle required employees seeking religious exemptions to undergo a panel interview and read a “fact sheet” presenting religious leaders’ support for vaccination. Employees granted religious accommodations were placed on unpaid leave, while those with medical accommodations were not. Mrs. Bilyeu ultimately received a medical exemption before the policy took effect and did not lose pay or work time. Mr. Bilyeu, however, was placed on unpaid leave after exhausting his vacation days, returning to work only after the policy was rescinded.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted summary judgment to UT-Battelle on all claims except Mrs. Bilyeu’s retaliation claim, which was later settled. The court found that Mrs. Bilyeu lacked standing and that Mr. Bilyeu had not suffered a materially adverse employment action under Title VII.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment as to Mrs. Bilyeu, holding she lacked Article III standing because she suffered no cognizable injury after receiving her medical accommodation. For Mr. Bilyeu, the Sixth Circuit vacated the summary judgment on his disparate treatment and failure-to-accommodate claims, instructing the district court to reconsider them in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which eliminated the “materially adverse” requirement for adverse employment actions under Title VII. The court reversed the summary judgment on Mr. Bilyeu’s retaliation claim, finding sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the interview process could dissuade a reasonable worker from seeking a religious accommodation, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bilyeu v. UT-Battelle, LLC" on Justia Law

After tripping and falling on a raised portion of sidewalk in front of a residence, the plaintiff sued the owners of the adjacent properties and the City for negligence and premises liability. The claim against one property owner, Goode, was based on the theory that a tree in the parkway in front of her house had roots extending under the sidewalk where the plaintiff fell, potentially causing the damage. The City maintained and inspected the tree and sidewalk, but the plaintiff alleged Goode’s ownership of the tree contributed to the dangerous condition.The Ventura County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Goode, finding no triable issue of material fact regarding her liability. The plaintiff did not oppose Goode’s motion for summary judgment, but the City did file an opposition and attempted to file a cross-complaint against Goode. The trial court declined to consider the City’s opposition, ruling that the City lacked standing because it had not filed a cross-complaint, and rejected the cross-complaint on procedural grounds.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. It held that a codefendant with an adverse interest has standing to oppose a motion for summary judgment, regardless of whether a cross-complaint has been filed. The court further found that the City’s cross-complaint was properly filed and should not have been rejected. However, after reviewing the evidence de novo, the appellate court concluded that Goode could not be held liable as a matter of law because she did not own, control, or maintain the sidewalk or tree in a manner that created the dangerous condition. The judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Goode was affirmed. View "Bean v. City of Thousand Oaks" on Justia Law

A flight attendant on a Delta Air Lines flight observed a 13-year-old passenger crying during turbulence and believed the man accompanying her was behaving inappropriately. Concluding that the man was sexually assaulting and trafficking the child, the attendant reported her concerns to the flight captain, who relayed the information to a station manager. The manager contacted local police, who detained and questioned the man, Nicholas Cupp, and his daughter upon landing. After investigation, police determined Cupp was the child’s father and released him without charges. Cupp later filed suit, alleging the report was false and reckless, and claimed significant emotional distress and harm to his relationship with his daughter.The case was initially filed in the Circuit Court of Newport News, Virginia, but was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia based on diversity jurisdiction. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing immunity under Virginia Code § 63.2-1512 for good-faith reports of suspected child abuse. The district court granted the motion, finding the immunity statute applicable even though the report was made to law enforcement rather than directly to social services, and concluded that Cupp had not sufficiently alleged bad faith or malicious intent.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed whether a nonmandatory reporter who makes a good-faith complaint of suspected child abuse to law enforcement, rather than directly to social services, is entitled to immunity under Virginia Code § 63.2-1512. Finding no controlling Virginia precedent, the Fourth Circuit certified this question to the Supreme Court of Virginia, as its answer will determine whether the district court’s dismissal should be affirmed or reversed. View "Cupp v. Delta Air Lines, Inc." on Justia Law

Jill Esche, who was seven months pregnant, was admitted to Renown Regional Medical Center in Nevada with severe hypertension and erratic behavior. Hospital staff, believing she was mentally ill and a danger to herself and her fetus, petitioned for her involuntary commitment under Nevada law. While the petition was pending, Esche was kept in the hospital, given psychiatric and medical treatment against her will, restricted from visitors and phone use, and not informed that a public defender had been appointed for her. After giving birth by C-section, the hospital decided to withdraw the commitment petition but allowed Esche to leave while she was still in fragile condition. She died outside near the hospital that night. Her estate and survivors sued the hospital and several staff members, alleging violations of her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Nevada law.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment to the defendants on some claims, including unreasonable seizure and procedural due process claims, but denied summary judgment on others, such as substantive due process, conspiracy, and failure-to-train-or-supervise claims. The court also denied the defendants’ assertion of a good-faith defense to § 1983 liability, finding that the defense did not apply because the hospital was not required by law or directed by a public official to hold Esche involuntarily. Both sides appealed: the defendants challenged the denial of the good-faith defense, and the plaintiffs cross-appealed the dismissal of other constitutional claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court’s denial of the good-faith defense was not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, as the defense is a defense to liability, not an immunity from suit. The court dismissed both the defendants’ appeals and the plaintiffs’ cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Estate of Esche v. Bunuel-Jordana" on Justia Law

Scranton Products sued Bobrick Washroom Equipment in 2014, alleging false advertising regarding the fire compliance of Scranton’s toilet partitions. Bobrick counterclaimed, asserting Scranton’s advertising was itself false. Scranton voluntarily dismissed its claims, and the parties entered into a settlement agreement that included a provision waiving their rights to appeal any court orders arising from the agreement or enforcement motions. The District Court approved the agreement, dismissed the case, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. Subsequently, both parties filed enforcement motions related to compliance with the agreement, leading to a public evidentiary hearing. During post-hearing proceedings, Scranton moved to seal certain documents, and the District Court issued two sealing orders: one temporarily sealing documents during the pendency of enforcement motions, and another indefinitely sealing them after the motions were resolved.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied all enforcement motions and issued the second sealing order, directing the parties to confer about sealing and stating that, absent agreement, the status quo of sealing would remain. Bobrick appealed both sealing orders, arguing that the indefinite sealing was overbroad and contrary to the public’s right of access to judicial records.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. It held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the first, temporary sealing order because it was no longer in effect, rendering the appeal moot. The court found it had jurisdiction to review the second, indefinite sealing order under the collateral order doctrine, as it was final and appealable. However, the Third Circuit enforced the appellate waiver in the settlement agreement, declining to exercise jurisdiction over the appeal and affirming the District Court’s indefinite sealing order. The court also denied Bobrick’s alternative request for a writ of mandamus. View "Bobrick Washroom Equipment Inc v. Scranton Products Inc" on Justia Law

An instrumentality of Iran attempted to wire nearly $10 million through an American bank, but the funds were blocked by the U.S. government under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) due to Iran’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. Two groups of plaintiffs, each holding substantial judgments against Iran for its support of terrorist acts, sought to attach these blocked funds to satisfy their judgments. The funds had been frozen by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and were the subject of a pending civil-forfeiture action initiated by the United States.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially quashed the plaintiffs’ writs of attachment. The court reasoned, first, that the funds were not “blocked assets” as defined by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) and thus were immune from attachment. Second, it held that the government’s earlier-filed civil-forfeiture action invoked the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine, barring any subsequent in rem proceedings against the same property. The district court also noted that the existence of the Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund suggested Congress did not intend to encourage individual attachment actions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed. The court held that the funds in question are “blocked assets” under TRIA, as they remain frozen by OFAC and are not subject to a license required by a statute other than IEEPA. The court further held that the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine does not bar multiple in rem proceedings filed in the same court. Accordingly, the court concluded that neither sovereign immunity nor the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine prevented the plaintiffs from seeking attachment of the funds and reversed the district court’s order quashing the writs of attachment. View "Estate of Levin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

A dispute arose after Howard Misle, acting as lender, provided funds to Abram, LLC, under a promissory note to support the company’s real estate ventures. The note, initially executed in 2004 and later amended, allowed advances up to $5 million at 3% interest. In 2007, after selling a property known as Park Place, Howard was paid sums from the sale proceeds, including a payoff for the note and reimbursement for advances. Later, Howard continued to make advances to Abram for new properties in Pennsylvania. In 2020, Howard demanded repayment on the note, and when Abram did not pay, he filed suit. Abram responded by asserting a defense of recoupment, claiming Howard had been overpaid in 2007, and also filed counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent concealment.The District Court for Lancaster County granted summary judgment for Howard on the recoupment defense, finding the 2007 payment was a separate transaction from the advances Howard sought to recover. After a bench trial, the court also found that the statute of limitations barred Abram’s counterclaims, concluding that Abram’s agents had knowledge of the relevant facts and that the discovery rule did not toll the limitations period. The court adopted Howard’s calculation of interest on the note without an evidentiary hearing, overruling Abram’s objections.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. It held that Abram’s recoupment defense regarding the alleged 2007 overpayment should not have been dismissed on summary judgment, as it arose from the same transaction as Howard’s claim on the note. However, the court affirmed summary judgment for Howard on recoupment related to a personal loan to a third party. The court also found that the statute of limitations was tolled for Abram’s breach of fiduciary duty counterclaim but affirmed the dismissal of the fraudulent concealment claim. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings, including a determination of whether interest should be calculated as simple or compound. View "Konecne v. Abram, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, Christopher C. Brown, through his company Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment (TME), owned a Memphis music studio and insured both the studio and its equipment with Hanover American Insurance Company. John Falls, a musician, leased Studio B and its equipment from Brown and also obtained insurance from Hanover for the equipment and lost business income. In 2015, the studio was damaged by arson, and both Brown and Falls submitted insurance claims. Hanover discovered Brown had forged receipts for equipment purchases and sued to recover advance payments and for a declaratory judgment of no further liability. Brown, Falls, and another lessee counter-sued for breach of contract. After a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Falls was awarded $2.5 million for equipment loss and $250,000 for business income, while Brown was found to have committed insurance fraud.Hanover moved to set aside the verdict under Rule 50(b), which the district court granted. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding Hanover had forfeited its Rule 50(b) motion by failing to make a Rule 50(a) motion as to Falls, and ordered reinstatement of the jury verdict. Subsequent proceedings included a federal interpleader action and a parallel state court action between Falls and TME. The district court enjoined the state action, but the Sixth Circuit reversed the injunction.In the present appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s allocation of the insurance payout, holding that Hanover was precluded by res judicata from challenging Falls’s recovery on grounds that could have been raised earlier. The court found the district court’s error in interpreting the wrong lease was harmless and upheld the allocation of funds based on the value of Falls’s leasehold interest. The court also held that Tennessee public policy barred Brown from recovering his allocated share due to his insurance fraud. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Hanover American Insurance Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment" on Justia Law

Several residents of a recreational vehicle park in Oregon brought a class action lawsuit against the park’s owners and managers, alleging that the park’s utility billing practices violated the Oregon Residential Landlord Tenant Act (ORLTA). Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that they were charged for electricity at rates higher than the actual cost and were improperly assessed meter reading fees. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class covering a ten-year period prior to the filing of the complaint, arguing that the statute of limitations should be tolled until tenants discovered or reasonably should have discovered the alleged violations.The Marion County Circuit Court agreed with the plaintiffs, holding that the one-year statute of limitations in ORS 12.125 incorporated a discovery rule. The court certified a class including tenants who paid the disputed charges during the ten years before the complaint was filed, provided they did not or should not have discovered the facts giving rise to their claims more than one year before filing. The court later granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs, found the defendants liable, and awarded substantial damages and attorney fees.On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s class certification and related rulings, holding that ORS 12.125 does not include a discovery rule and that the one-year limitations period is not tolled by a plaintiff’s lack of knowledge of the claim. The plaintiffs sought review of this issue.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The court held that ORS 12.125 does not incorporate a discovery rule; the one-year statute of limitations begins to run when the alleged violation or breach occurs, not when the plaintiff discovers it. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hathaway v. B & J Property Investments, Inc." on Justia Law