Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Gail Andersen appealed a decision rejecting her challenges to her mother Barbara Colanton's will and trust. Barbara had two daughters, Andersen and Brenda Grant, who had a falling out after their father's death in 2000. Barbara revised her estate plan multiple times, with significant changes in 2015 that favored Grant. Andersen alleged that Barbara was cognitively impaired and that Grant exercised undue influence over her when the 2015 revisions were made.The Circuit Court (Weaver, J.) found that Barbara had the legal capacity to execute the will and trust documents. It also determined that Grant, being in a fiduciary relationship with Barbara, had the burden to show a lack of undue influence. The court applied the preponderance of the evidence standard, concluding that Grant met her burden. However, it also noted that Grant did not meet the burden by clear and convincing evidence, anticipating a possible appeal.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed whether the trial court erred in applying the preponderance of the evidence standard instead of the clear and convincing evidence standard. The court held that the preponderance of the evidence standard was appropriate, aligning the burden of proof for undue influence with that for testamentary capacity. The court reasoned that this standard strikes a balance between respecting the decedent’s wishes and protecting against undue influence. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, noting that the legislature could establish a different burden of proof if it disagreed with this standard. View "In re Estate of Colanton" on Justia Law

Greg Phillips died on October 11, 2019, after receiving medical care from Dr. Anna Robbins at Logan Health. On April 22, 2021, Phillips' estate filed a medical malpractice claim with the Montana Medical Legal Panel (MMLP), which issued a decision on December 9, 2021. Subsequently, on January 5, 2022, Phillips filed a complaint in the District Court alleging wrongful death, negligent infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium, a survivor’s claim, and respondeat superior. However, the complaint was not served on Logan Health. On February 10, 2023, Phillips filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) adding claims of common law negligence and negligent misrepresentation, which was served on Logan Health on February 20, 2023.The Montana Eleventh Judicial District Court dismissed the FAC with prejudice on April 28, 2023, because Phillips failed to serve the original complaint within the six-month period required by § 25-3-106, MCA, and the two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims under § 27-2-205, MCA, had expired. Phillips' motion to alter, amend, or set aside the dismissal was denied on June 13, 2023, as the court found that the statute of limitations resumed running after the six-month service deadline passed and that the FAC did not relate back to the original complaint.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The court held that the statute of limitations was not tolled during the six-month period for serving the complaint and that the FAC was filed outside the two-year limitations period. The court also determined that Logan Health's motion to dismiss did not constitute an appearance under § 25-3-106, MCA, and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Phillips' post-judgment motion. View "Phillips v. Robbins" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, representing their minor son, sued a hospital and a doctor for medical malpractice after their baby suffered birth injuries during delivery. They sought $6,000,000 in damages. Under Puerto Rico law, damages would be capped at $150,000 if the doctor was a faculty member at the hospital at the time of the birth. The defendants claimed the doctor was a faculty member, but could not produce a contract to prove it. The district court held a pretrial evidentiary hearing and concluded that the doctor was a faculty member, thus applying the statutory cap on damages.The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico adopted a magistrate judge's Report & Recommendation, which stated that the applicability of the statutory cap was a matter of law. The district court found that the doctor was a faculty member based on testimony and letters from the medical school, despite the absence of a contract. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the applicability of the statutory cap was a factual question that should have been decided by a jury.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that whether the doctor was a faculty member at the time of the birth was a factual question requiring a jury's determination. The court found that the evidence was not one-sided enough to compel the district court's conclusion and that the district court improperly took the question from the jury. The First Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Perez-Perez v. Hospital Episcopal San Lucas Inc." on Justia Law

The Idaho Attorney General filed a petition seeking to prevent an initiative from appearing on the 2024 general election ballot. The initiative, proposed by Idahoans for Open Primaries, aims to replace Idaho’s closed party primary system with a non-partisan “top four primary” and implement ranked-choice voting for the general election. The Attorney General argued that the signatures supporting the initiative were obtained through false statements and material omissions, violating Idaho Code section 34-1815, and that the initiative violated the single-subject rule of the Idaho Constitution by proposing two distinct changes to election laws.The Idaho Supreme Court dismissed the Attorney General’s petition on procedural grounds. The court held that allegations of fraud in the signature-gathering process must first be adjudicated in the district court. The court emphasized that its original jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition and mandamus is limited and that such writs are proper only when a state actor has a clear legal duty to act. The court found that the Secretary of State had no clear legal duty to invalidate the signatures based on the Attorney General’s allegations and that the Secretary’s role in the initiative process is ministerial, not adjudicatory.The court also addressed the Attorney General’s claim that the initiative violated the single-subject rule. It concluded that this issue was not ripe for review because the initiative had not yet been approved by voters. The court stated that substantive challenges to an initiative’s constitutionality are not justiciable before the initiative becomes law. The court’s decision does not preclude the Attorney General from pursuing his claims in the district court. View "Labrador v. Idahoans for Open Primaries" on Justia Law

The case involves the Old Creek Ranch Winery, owned by Holguin Family Ventures, LLC, and leased by OCRW, Inc. The Ventura County Board of Supervisors found that the appellants violated the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance by expanding the winery and wine-tasting area without a conditional use permit (CUP) and changing the principal use of the ranch from crop production to a wine tasting/event venue. The Board also denied their request for zoning clearance for a paved parking lot and electric vehicle charging stations.The trial court upheld the Board's decision, applying the substantial evidence standard of review. The court found that the appellants had converted the property’s principal use from crop and wine production to a commercial wine bar and event space. The court also denied appellants' motion to amend their complaint to add a new cause of action for declaratory relief and dismissed their remaining cause of action for inverse condemnation.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that the substantial evidence standard was appropriate and found that substantial evidence supported the Board's decision. The court also upheld the trial court's denial of the motion to amend the complaint, concluding that the proposed new cause of action was unnecessary and that the delay in filing the motion was unjustified. Additionally, the court ruled that the Outdoor Events Ordinance did not apply to the winery, as it was separately regulated under the Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance.The main holding is that the substantial evidence standard of review was correctly applied, and substantial evidence supports the Board's findings of zoning violations and the denial of the zoning clearance for the parking lot and charging stations. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend the complaint. The judgment was affirmed. View "Holguin Family Ventures v. County of Ventura" on Justia Law

In 1974, Regina Andrews was found murdered, and her husband, Isaiah Andrews, was convicted of the crime based on circumstantial evidence. After nearly 46 years in prison, Isaiah was granted a new trial in 2020 when it was discovered that exculpatory evidence had been withheld. A new jury acquitted him in 2021. Subsequently, Isaiah filed a § 1983 lawsuit against the City of Cleveland and several officers, alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights due to the suppression of exculpatory evidence.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed Isaiah's claims against the estates of the deceased officers, William Hubbard and Ernest Rowell, citing that the claims were filed too late under Ohio law. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Cleveland, concluding that the police did not withhold exculpatory evidence from the prosecution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of claims against the estates of Hubbard and Rowell, agreeing that Isaiah's claims were untimely under Ohio law. However, the court reversed the summary judgment in favor of the City of Cleveland. The appellate court found that there was a material dispute of fact regarding whether the police had withheld a crucial page of a police report linking another suspect to the crime scene. The court remanded the case to the district court to determine whether a City policy caused the alleged Brady violation. View "Estate of Andrews v. City of Cleveland" on Justia Law

Sheila Ann Trantham filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan proposing that the property of the bankruptcy estate vest in her at the time of plan confirmation. The Trustee objected, arguing that the local form plan required the property to vest only when the court entered a final decree. The bankruptcy court agreed with the Trustee, holding that a debtor could not propose a plan that contradicted the local form’s default vesting provision. Trantham amended her plan to conform with the local form but reserved her right to appeal.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision. The district court reasoned that vesting property in the debtor at confirmation could lead to various risks and practical problems, such as the property being vulnerable to creditors and the trustee lacking sufficient oversight. The court also held that Trantham lacked standing to appeal because she had not shown any injury from having to conform to the local form’s default vesting provision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s order. The Fourth Circuit held that Trantham had standing to appeal because the bankruptcy court’s order diminished her property and increased her procedural burdens. The court also found that the bankruptcy court erred in requiring Trantham to conform to the local form’s default vesting provision. The court emphasized that the Bankruptcy Code allows debtors to propose nonstandard provisions, including vesting provisions, and that the bankruptcy court’s decision to reject Trantham’s proposed vesting provision was not supported by the Code.The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the bankruptcy court to assess whether Trantham’s proposed vesting provision should be confirmed or rejected for a reason permitted by the Code. View "Trantham v. Tate" on Justia Law

Alison George sought to represent a class and obtain damages from Rushmore Service Center, LLC, based on a letter that identified Premier Bankcard, LLC as the “current/original creditor” instead of the actual credit card company. George alleged that this violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by failing to identify the creditor to whom the debt was owed and providing misleading information. She claimed that this would confuse the least sophisticated consumer about the legitimacy of the debt.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Rushmore’s motion to stay proceedings and compel individual arbitration. George lost in arbitration, where the arbitrator ruled in favor of Rushmore, finding that George was not misled because she admitted she did not read the letter. The District Court then declined to vacate the arbitration award, rejecting George’s arguments that the arbitrator disregarded evidence and law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and focused on whether George had standing to sue. The court concluded that George lacked standing from the outset because her complaint did not allege any specific adverse effects or confusion she personally experienced due to the letter. The court held that confusion alone is insufficient to establish a concrete injury under Article III. Consequently, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s orders and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of standing. The court declined to vacate the arbitration award itself, leaving its enforceability to be determined in a jurisdictionally correct proceeding. View "George v. Rushmore Service Center LLC" on Justia Law

Maria Pomares submitted three Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concerning potential misconduct within the VA. She suspected that Charmain Bogue, the director of the Education Service in the Veterans Benefit Administration, had improper ties to a political advocacy organization and that the VA might have leaked nonpublic information. After Pomares submitted her FOIA requests, the VA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that Bogue had acted improperly.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the VA. The court concluded that the VA’s search for responsive emails was reasonable and that the VA properly justified its withholdings under FOIA Exemptions 4, 5, 6, and 7. The district court found that the Vaughn Indices provided by the VA were adequate and included sufficient detail to justify the withholdings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment regarding the adequacy of the VA’s search for emails and the application of Exemption 4 to records obtained from Evocati. The court also affirmed the application of Exemption 6 to the redaction of names and contact information, except for the names (but not email addresses) of Veterans Education Success (VES) employees who lobbied Congress or the VA. However, the court reversed the district court’s judgment regarding the withholding of OIG interview transcripts under Exemption 7(E), as the VA did not adequately justify that the interview techniques and methods used by OIG fell within this exemption. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Pomares v. USDVA" on Justia Law

Perdue Farms operates a poultry-processing plant in Indiana. In August 2018, an L&B Transport driver mistakenly delivered aluminum chloride instead of bleach, causing a chemical reaction that damaged the plant. Perdue sued L&B Transport, its driver, U.S. Security Associates, and three security guards employed by U.S. Security, seeking over $1.2 million in damages. The security-service contract between Perdue and U.S. Security included a forum-selection clause designating Maryland federal court as the venue for disputes.The Daviess Circuit Court dismissed Perdue’s claims against U.S. Security and its employees, citing the forum-selection clause. Perdue appealed, arguing the clause was unenforceable and did not apply to the employees. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding the clause unenforceable due to the potential for multiple lawsuits in different jurisdictions. A dissenting judge argued that Perdue, as a sophisticated entity, should adhere to its contractual agreement.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the forum-selection clause is enforceable against U.S. Security, requiring Perdue to litigate those claims in Maryland federal court. However, the court found that the clause does not apply to the individual employees, as they were not parties to the contract and not in privity with U.S. Security. The court rejected the argument that the employees' duties under the contract made them subject to the forum-selection clause.The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of claims against U.S. Security for improper venue but reversed the dismissal of claims against the individual employees. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Perdue Farms Inc. v. L & B Transport, LLC" on Justia Law