Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

McKenzie Electric Cooperative, Inc. ("McKenzie Electric") sought a supervisory writ from the North Dakota Supreme Court to direct the district court to vacate its order of recusal, deny the motion for recusal, and reassign the case back to Judge El-Dweek. The case began in November 2019, and in July 2020, Judge El-Dweek disclosed his membership in McKenzie Electric. Discovery continued through 2023, and McKenzie Electric disclosed it was seeking significant damages. In May 2024, the respondents filed a motion for a change of venue due to potential juror bias. Following a hearing, Judge El-Dweek recused himself, citing the appearance of impropriety.The district court's decision to recuse was challenged by McKenzie Electric, which argued that the recusal would cause delays and waste judicial resources. The North Dakota Supreme Court, however, emphasized that the justice system presumes judges impartially apply the law and that having a different judge decide the case does not merit the assertion of supervisory jurisdiction. The court noted that any error in granting or denying recusal could be remedied by appeal.The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded that this case did not present extraordinary circumstances warranting the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. The court found that the claimed injustice from the delay was largely unavoidable and could not be remedied by granting the writ. Therefore, the petition for a supervisory writ was denied. View "McKenzie Electric Coop., Inc. v. El-Dweek" on Justia Law

The Commonwealth sought to civilly commit a prisoner, previously convicted of a sexual offense, as a "sexually dangerous person" (SDP) under Massachusetts law. The process required expert testimony to establish probable cause and qualified examiners to determine if the case should proceed to trial. The plaintiff, George Mackie, was initially adjudicated as an SDP based on expert reports and testimony, but this decision was later vacated on appeal due to prejudicial error.Mackie then filed separate civil actions against Dr. Katrin Rouse-Weir, a probable cause expert, and Dr. Robert Joss, a qualified examiner, alleging they submitted false reports and testimony. Both defendants moved to dismiss the complaints, claiming immunity. Superior Court judges granted the motions, concluding that the defendants were entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity. Mackie appealed these decisions.The Appeals Court reversed the dismissals, ruling that the experts were entitled only to qualified immunity, not absolute quasi-judicial immunity. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted further appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court held that qualified examiners like Joss are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity due to their essential and independent role in the judicial process. The court also concluded that probable cause experts like Rouse-Weir are protected by the litigation privilege, which shields them from liability for their statements made during judicial proceedings. Consequently, the court affirmed the Superior Court judgments dismissing Mackie's complaints against both experts. View "Mackie v. Rouse-Weir" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were injured during a nightclub shooting at a rap concert featuring performers from rival gangs. They sued the nightclub's owner and operators for negligence per se and strict liability on an ultrahazardous activity theory, claiming inadequate event planning and security. The trial court granted summary adjudication for the defendants on the negligence per se claim and judgment on the pleadings for the ultrahazardous activity claim, leading to a judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing there were triable issues of fact for both claims.The Superior Court of Riverside County initially reviewed the case. The court granted summary adjudication on the negligence per se claim, finding that the conditional use permit was not designed to prevent the type of injuries sustained by the plaintiffs. Additionally, the court treated the motion regarding the ultrahazardous activity claim as a motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted it without leave to amend, concluding that hosting a rap concert, even with performers from rival gangs, was not an ultrahazardous activity.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the conditional use permit constituted a statute, ordinance, or regulation under the negligence per se doctrine. Furthermore, the court found that the permit was not designed to prevent the specific type of harm suffered by the plaintiffs. Regarding the ultrahazardous activity claim, the court concluded that hosting a rap concert, even with rival gang members, did not constitute an ultrahazardous activity as the risks could be mitigated with proper planning and security measures. The judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed. View "Carmichael v. Cafe Sevilla of Riverside, Inc." on Justia Law

A motorist struck and injured a pedestrian during rush hour. The motorist claimed the pedestrian stepped out from behind a large truck, obstructing her view. Witnesses and investigating officers corroborated the motorist's account, finding no evidence of speeding, reckless driving, or distraction. The pedestrian sued the motorist and her insurer for negligence, and the motorist raised a contributory-negligence defense.The Hamilton Superior Court initially granted the pedestrian's motion to compel the motorist to produce her iPhone for inspection, limited to the hour surrounding the accident. However, the court reversed its decision upon reconsideration, citing significant privacy concerns and lack of evidence suggesting the motorist was using her phone at the time. The court also granted a motion in limine to exclude any discussion of the phone inspection at trial. A jury found the pedestrian 90% at fault, barring recovery under Indiana's contributory-fault standard. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the burden of the proposed phone inspection outweighed its likely benefit given the motorist's privacy concerns.The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the pedestrian's discovery request lacked necessary evidentiary support and was overly broad. The court emphasized that privacy concerns are not a per se bar to discovery but must be balanced against the need for information. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel, as the pedestrian failed to show that the benefit of inspecting the motorist's phone outweighed her privacy interests. View "Jennings v. Smiley" on Justia Law

Iowa enacted Senate File 2340, which criminalizes the presence of aliens who have illegally reentered the United States within its boundaries. The Act mandates that aliens violating it must return to the country they reentered from and prohibits judges from abating state prosecutions due to pending or possible federal determinations of the alien’s immigration status. The United States sought a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Act, which the district court granted. Iowa appealed the decision.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ruled that the United States had standing to sue and could state a cause of action to enjoin the Act. The court found that the United States established a likelihood of success on the merits, showing that federal immigration law preempts the Act under both conflict and field preemption. The court also found that irreparable harm would occur if the Act went into effect and that the balance of equities and public interest favored granting the injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion, examining factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the United States had standing and an equitable cause of action to enjoin the Act. The court found that the Act likely conflicts with federal immigration law, as it obstructs the discretion of federal officials and creates a parallel enforcement scheme. The court also agreed that the United States demonstrated irreparable harm and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the injunction. The preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Act was affirmed. View "United States v. State of Iowa" on Justia Law

CEZ Prior, LLC ("CEZ") entered into a purchase agreement with 755 N Prior Ave., LLC ("Prior") to buy a property for $26 million. The agreement required Prior to cooperate in obtaining tenant estoppel certificates. Errors in square footage measurements led to rent discrepancies, prompting an amendment to reduce the purchase price to $15.1 million and the cash required at closing to $3.8 million. CEZ later requested to delay closing due to financial issues, but Prior did not agree. Prior sent estoppel certificates that did not address rate increases, and CEZ proposed edits that Prior rejected. CEZ demanded satisfactory certificates on the closing date, but Prior terminated the agreement, alleging CEZ failed to tender cash.CEZ sued Prior for breach of contract in Minnesota state court and sought to enjoin the termination. Prior removed the case to federal court and counterclaimed for breach of contract. The district court stayed the matter and later denied CEZ's motion for a preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction. The court found that CEZ was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its breach of contract claim, as Prior had reasonably cooperated in obtaining the estoppel certificates. The balance of harms favored Prior, given CEZ's insufficient evidence of its ability to pay. The public interest did not favor CEZ due to its low probability of success on the merits.The court also addressed CEZ's argument under Minnesota law, finding that the district court's stay order was not an injunction and did not extend statutory deadlines. Consequently, CEZ was not entitled to additional time to close under Minnesota statutes. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "CEZ Prior, LLC v. 755 N Prior Ave. LLC" on Justia Law

John Doe filed a putative class action against SSM Health Care Corporation in Missouri state court, alleging that SSM shared private health information with third-party marketing services without authorization, violating Missouri law. Doe claimed that SSM's MyChart patient portal transmitted personal health data to third-party websites like Facebook. The lawsuit included nine state law claims, such as violations of the Missouri Wiretap Statute and the Computer Tampering Act.SSM removed the case to federal court, citing the federal officer removal statute and the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Doe moved to remand the case to state court. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri rejected SSM's arguments, ruling that SSM was not "acting under" a federal officer and that Doe's proposed class was limited to Missouri citizens, thus lacking the minimal diversity required under CAFA. The district court remanded the case to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that SSM did not meet the criteria for federal officer removal because it was not acting under the direction of a federal officer. The court also held that the proposed class was limited to Missouri citizens, which destroyed the minimal diversity necessary for CAFA jurisdiction. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's remand order. View "Doe v. SSM Health Care Corporation" on Justia Law

The Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC), a non-profit organization, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the United States Park Police for information about legal actions against the agency. After the Park Police failed to respond within the statutory period, HRDC filed a FOIA lawsuit. The Park Police eventually produced documents but withheld the names of officers involved in three tort settlements, citing FOIA Exemption 6, which protects against unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. Additionally, the Park Police inadvertently disclosed names in some documents and sought to prevent HRDC from using or disseminating this information.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Park Police correctly withheld the officer names under Exemption 6 and issued a clawback order for the inadvertently disclosed names, invoking its inherent authority to manage judicial proceedings.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Park Police failed to meet its burden under Exemption 6 to show that releasing the officer names would constitute a substantial invasion of privacy. The court found the agency's justifications to be generic and conclusory, lacking specific details. Consequently, the court did not need to balance the privacy interest against the public interest in disclosure.The court also determined that the district court's clawback order was not a valid exercise of inherent judicial authority, as it aimed to fill a perceived gap in the FOIA statute rather than protect core judicial functions. The court reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Park Police, vacated the clawback order, and remanded the case for the release of the non-exempt officer names. View "Human Rights Defense Center v. United States Park Police" on Justia Law

Rodney Martin worked for B.F. Goodrich Company from 1966 to 2012 and was exposed to vinyl chloride monomer until 1974. He was diagnosed with angiosarcoma of the liver in December 2019 and died in July 2020. His widow, Candice Martin, filed a civil action in November 2021, alleging that Rodney’s occupational exposure caused his illness and death. She invoked the exception in section 1.1 of the Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act to avoid its exclusivity provisions.PolyOne filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and Goodrich filed a motion to dismiss under the exclusivity provisions, arguing that section 1.1 did not apply and that using it would infringe on their due process rights. The district court denied these motions and certified two questions for interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which then certified three related questions to the Illinois Supreme Court.The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the case and answered the certified questions. The court held that section 1(f) of the Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act is a period of repose for purposes of section 1.1. The court also determined that section 1.1 applies prospectively under section 4 of the Statute on Statutes, meaning it applies to new actions filed after the amendment was enacted. Finally, the court found that applying section 1.1 prospectively does not violate Illinois’s due process guarantee, as defendants did not have a vested right in an exclusivity defense before the employee’s injury was discovered. View "Martin v. Goodrich Corp." on Justia Law

Rebecca Petta filed a class-action complaint in the circuit court of Champaign County against Christie Business Holdings Company, P.C., doing business as Christie Clinic. Petta alleged that Christie negligently failed to prevent unauthorized access to its business email account, which potentially exposed patients' private personal data, including Social Security numbers and health insurance information. Christie moved to dismiss the complaint, and the trial court granted the motion.The trial court found that Petta had standing due to an inference of injury from unauthorized use of her phone number and city in a loan application. However, the court dismissed the complaint for failing to state a valid claim under existing law and due to the economic loss doctrine. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal but on the grounds that Petta lacked standing, as the alleged increased risk of identity theft was too speculative and the unauthorized loan application did not involve her private personal data.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case and agreed with the appellate court. The court held that Petta's allegations of increased risk of harm were insufficient to confer standing in a complaint seeking monetary damages. The court also found that the unauthorized loan application, which used only Petta's publicly available phone number and city, was not fairly traceable to Christie's alleged misconduct. Consequently, the court affirmed the appellate court's judgment, concluding that Petta lacked standing to bring her claims. View "Petta v. Christie Business Holding Co., P.C." on Justia Law