Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. (Alcatel) challenged the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's 2014 cap on net-loss carryover (NLC) deductions for corporate net income (CNI) tax. The cap allowed corporations to carry forward net operating losses up to the greater of $4 million or 25% of the company's 2014 net income. Alcatel, with a net income of $27,332,333 and accumulated losses exceeding that amount, could only carry over $6,833,083 due to the cap, resulting in a taxable income of around $20 million and a tax liability of approximately $2 million. Alcatel paid the tax and sought a refund, arguing the cap violated the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.The Department of Revenue's Board of Appeals and the Board of Finance and Revenue denied Alcatel's refund request, citing lack of authority to decide constitutional issues. Alcatel then appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which initially affirmed the Board's decision, applying the Chevron test and concluding that the Nextel decision should not apply retroactively. However, after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in General Motors Corp. v. Commonwealth, which held that Nextel applies retroactively, an en banc panel of the Commonwealth Court reversed the earlier decision, sustaining Alcatel's exceptions and ordering a refund.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and concluded that the General Motors decision was erroneous. The Court held that Nextel should apply only prospectively, not retroactively, as it established a new principle of law. The Court applied the Chevron test, determining that retroactive application would not further the operation of the rule and would cause significant financial harm to the Commonwealth. Consequently, the Court reversed the Commonwealth Court's decision, ruling that due process does not require the Commonwealth to refund the taxes paid by Alcatel in 2014. View "Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Marlon Quesada, a deputy sheriff with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, was not promoted to sergeant despite taking the sergeant's examination in 2017 and 2019, scoring in band two and band one, respectively. Quesada had a mixed employment record, including two suspensions for misconduct and a 2015 investigation that was terminated due to a statute of limitations. Quesada claimed the Department improperly considered this time-barred investigation during the promotion process, which he argued was illegal.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Quesada's petition for a writ of mandate, which sought to compel the Department to promote him and provide back pay and other damages. The trial court rejected Quesada's argument for a burden-shifting approach, similar to that used in discrimination cases, and found that Quesada did not establish that the Department's decision was illegal.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the standard approach to civil litigation applies, where the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the elements of their claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The court declined to adopt a burden-shifting approach, noting that Quesada's case did not involve discrimination based on race or membership in a historically oppressed group. The court also found substantial evidence supporting the Department's decision, including Quesada's mediocre performance evaluations and past misconduct. The court concluded that Quesada's policy arguments did not justify a departure from the standard legal approach. View "Quesada v. County of L.A." on Justia Law

In 2016, the Mississippi legislature passed S.B. 2162, which abolished the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority (JMAA) and created the Jackson Metropolitan Area Airport Authority (Authority). The new Authority would be governed by nine commissioners, with only two selected by the Jackson city government. The JMAA commissioners, along with Jackson’s Mayor and City Council, intervened in a suit to enjoin enforcement of the law, alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Mississippi Constitution. They claimed S.B. 2162 diluted the voting rights of Jackson citizens and altered the airport’s management for race-based reasons.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi initially upheld the plaintiffs' standing and ordered discovery, which the legislators resisted, citing legislative privilege. On the first appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs lacked standing, as they failed to demonstrate injury to a legally protected interest. The case was remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to address the standing issue, and the district court again ordered discovery. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s privilege ruling but later dismissed the appeal as moot when none of the plaintiff-commissioners held their positions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue. The court held that the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were institutional rather than personal, as the injury affected the JMAA as an entity. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not have a protected property interest in their positions or the associated per diem and travel reimbursements. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss. View "Jones v. Reeves" on Justia Law

Bettie Blauser filed an appeal referencing a purported judgment of dismissal, which was actually an unsigned minute order from the final day of a jury trial. The minute order indicated that the court granted a motion for nonsuit regarding the First Amended Complaint and dismissed the First Amended Cross-Complaint without prejudice upon the cross-complainant's request.The Superior Court of Orange County issued the minute order, but it was not labeled as a judgment nor did it purport to enter judgment. The court invited the parties to brief the appealability of the order, raising concerns that the order was not appealable. The appellant was also invited to obtain a judgment of dismissal from the trial court to proceed with the appeal. However, the appellant filed a notice of entry of judgment or order, attaching the same minute order with the trial court's signature and the phrase "it is so ordered" added.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and determined that the signed minute order was still not an appealable judgment. The court emphasized that an appealable order or judgment is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal. The court cited the case Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale, which highlighted the necessity of a document identified as a "judgment" to trigger an appeal. The court dismissed the appeal without prejudice, allowing the appellant to file a notice of appeal from the judgment once it is properly entered by the trial court. The court urged trial courts to enter separate, signed documents clearly labeled as judgments or orders of dismissal to avoid confusion and ensure clarity for parties and attorneys. View "Blauser v. Dubin" on Justia Law

Carey Dale Grayson, an Alabama prisoner, sought a preliminary injunction to halt his scheduled execution by nitrogen hypoxia, arguing that the method violated the Eighth Amendment due to the risk of conscious suffocation and other potential harms. Grayson proposed alternative methods of execution, including nitrogen gas with sedation and a sequential injection of ketamine followed by fentanyl.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama denied Grayson's motion, finding that he did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim. The court held an evidentiary hearing where expert testimonies were presented. The court found that Grayson's evidence was speculative and did not show that the nitrogen hypoxia protocol created an unacceptable risk of pain. The court also found that the proposed alternatives were not feasible or readily implemented.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction, agreeing that Grayson failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. The court noted that the district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous and that the nitrogen hypoxia protocol had been successfully used in previous executions without evidence of conscious suffocation or other significant issues. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction. View "Grayson v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

In this case, a fire destroyed the building where Cory Michael Hoehn and his roommate lived. The building’s insurer, California Capital Insurance Company, determined that careless smoking caused the fire and sued Hoehn and his roommate for negligence, seeking damages. The company attempted to serve Hoehn with the complaint and summons, but the service was allegedly improper. A default judgment was entered against Hoehn in April 2011. In January 2020, Hoehn learned of the default judgment when his wages were garnished and promptly moved to set aside the judgment, claiming he was never properly served.The Placer County Superior Court denied Hoehn’s motion, ruling it was time-barred because it was filed more than two years after the default judgment. The court also found no extrinsic fraud or mistake. The Court of Appeal affirmed, relying on precedent that a motion to vacate a judgment for improper service must be made within two years if the judgment is not void on its face.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to determine the validity of the two-year time limit for such motions. The court held that the judicially created rule imposing a two-year limit on motions to vacate void judgments for improper service is not supported by the statute’s text, legislative intent, or sound justification. The court concluded that a motion to vacate a judgment void for lack of proper service under section 473(d) is not subject to a two-year limitation. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Cal. Capital Ins. Co. v. Hoehn" on Justia Law

Chad Sheller, as the personal representative of the estate of his son Daniel Elias Sheller, sought attorneys' fees after voluntarily dismissing a Vaccine Act petition. Daniel passed away at two months old, two days after receiving several vaccinations. Sheller filed for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, relying on the "Triple Risk Model" of vaccine-triggered sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) proposed by Dr. Douglas Miller. This model had previously been accepted in another case, Boatmon v. Secretary of Health & Human Services.The Special Master denied Sheller's request for attorneys' fees, concluding that the Triple Risk Model did not provide a reasonable basis for the claim. The United States Court of Federal Claims affirmed this decision. The Special Master also struck certain medical articles from the record, which were submitted after the petition was dismissed, deeming them irrelevant.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the Special Master abused his discretion by not considering whether the Triple Risk Model was a reasonable basis at the time of filing, given its prior acceptance in the Boatmon case. The court noted that the model was plausible and had succeeded before another special master, making it a reasonable basis for the petition when filed. The court also found that the Special Master did not abuse his discretion in striking the medical articles, as he assessed their relevance appropriately.The Federal Circuit vacated the decision and remanded the case for the Special Master to determine, in his discretion, whether attorneys' fees should be granted, considering the Vaccine Act's objective of maintaining access to qualified legal assistance. View "SHELLER v. HHS " on Justia Law

The case involves a First Amendment challenge to a policy in Caldwell County, Texas, which categorically excludes the press and the public from observing criminal pretrial proceedings known as magistrations. The plaintiffs, two nonprofit news organizations and an advocacy organization, argued that this policy violates their First Amendment right of access to judicial proceedings. The district court agreed, finding the policy unconstitutional and granting a preliminary injunction to prevent its enforcement.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially reviewed the case. The district court found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the policy and demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim. The court issued a preliminary injunction, enjoining the County from enforcing its policy of closing magistrations to the press and public, except in extraordinary circumstances and as constitutionally permitted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case on appeal. The County argued that the district court erred in finding that the plaintiffs had standing and in determining that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, agreeing that the plaintiffs had standing and that there is a presumptive First Amendment right of access to magistrations. The court applied the "experience and logic" test, finding that both historical practice and the positive role of public access in the functioning of bail hearings supported the plaintiffs' claim. The court concluded that the district court did not err in its determinations and upheld the preliminary injunction. View "Texas Tribune v. Caldwell County" on Justia Law

Allison Littlefield filed a verified petition against her brothers, Scott and David Littlefield, and her aunt, Denise Sobel, who are co-trustees of The Pony Tracks Ranch Trust. The petition sought their removal as co-trustees, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and the Trust, and requested declaratory and injunctive relief. Allison claimed that the appellants misused Trust funds, concealed information, converted her personal property, restricted her use of the Ranch, and failed to address misconduct by an employee, Stacey Limbada, who allegedly harassed Allison and her husband.The San Mateo County Superior Court denied the appellants' special motion to strike the petition under California's anti-SLAPP statute, concluding that the appellants failed to show that Allison's petition arose from protected activity. The court also denied Allison's request for attorney's fees, finding that the motion was not frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the anti-SLAPP motion, agreeing that the appellants did not meet their burden of showing that the petition was based on protected activity. The court noted that the appellants' motion failed to identify specific allegations of protected activity and improperly sought to strike the entire petition or all causes of action without distinguishing between protected and unprotected conduct.However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of Allison's request for attorney's fees, finding that the anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous. The court held that any reasonable attorney would agree that the motion was totally devoid of merit, as it did not demonstrate that the petition sought to impose liability based on protected activity. The case was remanded for a determination of the appropriate award of attorney's fees for Allison. View "Littlefield v. Littlefield" on Justia Law

The case involves the San Diego City Attorney filing a complaint against Experian Data Corp. for violating the unfair competition law (UCL) by failing to promptly notify consumers of a data breach as required by Civil Code section 1798.82(a). The City Attorney sought civil penalties and injunctive relief. The UCL claim is subject to a four-year statute of limitations, and the key issue is whether the discovery rule can delay the accrual of this non-fraud civil enforcement action.The Superior Court of Orange County initially overruled Experian's demurrer, which argued the complaint was time-barred. The court found the complaint did not show on its face that the UCL claim accrued before March 6, 2014. However, the court later granted Experian's motion in limine to exclude evidence relating to civil penalties, concluding the discovery rule did not apply to the UCL claim because it was a non-fraud claim and an enforcement action seeking civil penalties. The court also denied the City Attorney's motion for reconsideration and motion to file a Third Amended Complaint.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and concluded that the discovery rule can apply to delay the accrual of the UCL claim. The court found that the nature of the claim, the enforcement action seeking civil penalties, and the involvement of a governmental entity did not preclude the application of the discovery rule. The court noted that the discovery rule has been applied to various types of claims, including those involving civil penalties and enforcement actions by governmental entities.The appellate court reversed the trial court's orders granting Experian's motion in limine and denying reconsideration. The case was remanded for the trial court to reconsider the application of the discovery rule and determine when the UCL claim accrued based on the actual or constructive knowledge of the relevant actors. The trial court was also directed to reconsider the City Attorney's request to file a Third Amended Complaint. View "People v. Experian Data Corp." on Justia Law