Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Dow Construction, L.L.C. leased property within a forced pooled drilling unit operated by BPX Operating Company. Dow received proceeds from the unit but disputed the deduction of post-production costs by BPX. Dow sought a judgment to recover these costs, while BPX sought dismissal and summary judgment on various grounds.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana held that Dow had standing to sue and that the Louisiana doctrine of negotiorum gestio allowed operators to recover post-production costs. The court also ruled that the forced-pooling statute’s forfeiture provision included post-production costs and that claims under this statute were subject to a ten-year prescriptive period. BPX's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment were partially granted and denied, leading to an interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s interpretation that La. Rev. Stat. § 30:10(A)(3) applies to mineral interest owners unleased by the operator. However, it vacated the district court’s ruling that negotiorum gestio allows operators to recover post-production costs, following a Louisiana Supreme Court decision in Self v. BPX Operating Co. The court affirmed that post-production costs are included within the forfeiture provision of La. Rev. Stat. § 30:103.2. Finally, the court reversed the district court’s finding on the prescriptive period, holding that claims under § 30:103.2 are subject to a one-year prescriptive period, not ten years.The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "Dow Construction v. BPX Operating Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Ann Gima, was employed by the City and County of Honolulu's Department of Budget and Fiscal Services (BFS) for over twenty years. After being promoted to Real Property Technical Officer (RPTO) in 2012, Gima alleged that her supervisor, Robert Magota, began verbally harassing her, leading to her diagnosis of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. Gima was placed on workers' compensation leave intermittently from 2014 to 2018. In November 2017, she requested a reasonable accommodation to work under a different supervisor, which was denied. Magota retired in December 2017, and Gima returned to work in February 2018 under a new supervisor, Steven Takara. Shortly after, she received a substandard performance evaluation and was demoted.Gima filed claims with the Hawai‘i Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) for disability discrimination and retaliation and subsequently filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, concluding that Gima failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination or retaliation and that her request for an alternate supervisor was unreasonable as a matter of law.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed the case. The court held that Gima established a prima facie case of disability discrimination, as she demonstrated she had a disability, was qualified for her position, and was demoted because of her disability. The court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the City’s reasons for her negative evaluation and demotion were pretextual. The court also held that Gima’s request for an alternate supervisor was not unreasonable as a matter of law and that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the City could have assigned her a different supervisor.However, the court concluded that the City engaged in an interactive process to accommodate Gima by offering her a position in another department, which she declined after Magota retired. The court also found that Gima established a prima facie case of retaliation, as she engaged in protected activities, suffered adverse employment actions, and demonstrated a causal connection between the two. The court affirmed in part and vacated in part the circuit court’s order, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Gima v. City and County of Honolulu" on Justia Law

Employees of United Airlines, including pilots, flight attendants, and other staff, challenged the company's COVID-19 vaccination mandate and masking requirement issued in 2021. United required employees to either get vaccinated or apply for religious or medical exemptions by specific deadlines. Plaintiffs alleged that despite submitting or attempting to submit exemption requests, they were either fired, placed on unpaid leave, or subjected to a hostile work environment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice, finding that they had not stated any viable claim for relief despite having sufficient opportunities to do so. The court addressed each of the plaintiffs' twelve claims, noting that many were forfeited due to the plaintiffs' failure to respond to substantive arguments. The court also found deficiencies in the proposed amended complaints and ultimately dismissed the action with prejudice after determining that further amendments would be futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs' claims were either improperly preserved or inadequately pled. The court found that the plaintiffs had forfeited their FDCA, invasion of privacy, and negligence claims by failing to address the district court's findings of forfeiture. The court also upheld the dismissal of the Illinois Whistleblower Act claim, as the plaintiffs did not show how receiving a COVID-19 vaccine would violate federal regulations. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Title VII claims due to the plaintiffs' failure to obtain right-to-sue letters from the EEOC, which is a prerequisite for such lawsuits. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not err in denying further opportunities to amend the complaint. View "Anderson v. United Airlines" on Justia Law

Brian Lyngaas, a dentist, sued United Concordia Companies, Inc. (UCCI) for sending unsolicited faxed advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Lyngaas, through his dental practice, was part of UCCI’s Fee for Service Dental Network, which included a “Value Add Program” (VAP) offering discounts from third-party vendors. UCCI sent three faxes promoting these discounts, which Lyngaas claimed were unsolicited advertisements.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of UCCI, ruling that the faxes were not advertisements under the TCPA because UCCI’s profit motive was too remote. Lyngaas appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that UCCI’s faxes were advertisements under the TCPA because they facially promoted third-party products as part of exclusive marketing agreements, and UCCI had a sufficiently direct profit motive. The court emphasized that TCPA liability falls on the sender of the fax, not necessarily the seller of the advertised product. The court also noted that Lyngaas could not proceed with claims regarding a fax he did not receive. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Brian J. Lyngaas, D.D.S., P.L.L.C. v. United Concordia Co." on Justia Law

Jackson Hole Hereford Ranch, LLC (JHHR) sought to partition real property it claimed to own as a tenant in common with Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC (Leeks). Leeks counterclaimed, asserting sole ownership based on judicial estoppel, equitable estoppel, and adverse possession. The district court granted partial summary judgment to JHHR, dismissing Leeks’s judicial and equitable estoppel claims. After a bench trial, the court ruled against Leeks on the adverse possession claim. Leeks appealed both the summary judgment and the trial findings.The District Court of Teton County granted summary judgment to JHHR on Leeks’s judicial and equitable estoppel claims. The court found that Mr. Gill, representing JHHR, had forgotten about his 25% interest in the property during arbitration, negating the application of judicial estoppel. The court also found no evidence of willful misconduct or serious negligence by Mr. Gill, which is necessary for equitable estoppel. The court held that Mr. Gill’s statements during arbitration were not sufficient to establish estoppel.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The Supreme Court agreed that judicial estoppel did not apply because Mr. Gill’s prior position was based on a mistake. The court also upheld the summary judgment on equitable estoppel, finding no evidence of willful misconduct or serious negligence by Mr. Gill. Regarding adverse possession, the Supreme Court found that Leeks failed to prove that its possession of the property was hostile to JHHR’s interest. The court noted that Leeks did not provide clear notice to JHHR that its ownership was in jeopardy, a requirement for adverse possession among cotenants. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s rulings in favor of JHHR. View "Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC v. Jackson Hole Hereford Ranch, LLC" on Justia Law

Nakul Karkare, a surgeon affiliated with AA Medical, P.C., brought an action against the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Workers Local 580 (the Union) to recover unpaid benefits under section 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Karkare, holding a power of attorney for Patient JN, claimed the Union failed to fully reimburse AA Medical for surgical services provided to Patient JN, a beneficiary under the Union’s self-funded insurance plan. The Union reimbursed only $1,095.92 of the $153,579.94 billed by AA Medical.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the complaint sua sponte, concluding that a power of attorney did not permit Karkare to maintain an ERISA cause of action on behalf of Patient JN, as it was distinct from an assignment of claim. Karkare did not provide proof of a valid assignment but argued that the power of attorney was sufficient. The district court disagreed and dismissed the complaint, later denying Karkare’s motion for reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that Karkare lacked standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring the action. The court determined that Karkare was suing in his own name and not on behalf of Patient JN, despite holding a power of attorney. The court held that a power of attorney does not confer Article III standing to file suit in the attorney-in-fact’s own name. However, the court remanded the case to the district court to consider whether Patient JN should be permitted to be substituted into the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. The judgment was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Karkare v. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing" on Justia Law

In this case, Sacramento Television Stations Inc. (Sac TV) sought additional audio and video recordings from the City of Roseville (City) under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). The recordings pertained to an incident on April 6, 2023, where Roseville Police Department (Roseville PD) officers discharged firearms at a suspect, Eric J. Abril, resulting in injuries and a fatality. The City provided limited footage, arguing that further disclosure would interfere with an active investigation.The Superior Court of Placer County ruled that the City had shown by clear and convincing evidence that releasing more footage would substantially interfere with the ongoing investigation into Abril's criminal case. Consequently, the court denied Sac TV's petition for additional recordings. Sac TV then filed a petition for writ of mandate in the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, seeking to overturn the superior court's decision.The California Court of Appeal reviewed the case and concluded that the superior court's finding of an "active investigation" was not supported by substantial evidence. The appellate court determined that the City had not provided sufficient detail to demonstrate how further disclosure would interfere with an active investigation. The court also found that the superior court correctly interpreted that more disclosure was required under subdivision (e) of section 7923.625 of the Government Code, but it had not determined the extent of additional disclosure needed.The Court of Appeal vacated the superior court's ruling and directed it to hold further proceedings, including an in camera review of the City's recordings, to determine the extent of additional disclosure required. The appellate court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient context to understand the events captured in the recordings, as mandated by the CPRA. View "Sacramento Television Stations Inc. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The case involves petitioners P.F. and R.F., who sought custody and visitation rights for their grandchild, A.F., following the termination of A.F.'s mother's parental rights due to abuse and neglect. The Department of Human Services (DHS) had previously removed A.F. from her mother's custody in 2017 due to deplorable living conditions in the home shared with the petitioners. In 2021, A.F. was again removed from her mother's custody and placed with foster parents, K.B. and M.B., who had previously cared for her. Petitioners moved to intervene and obtain custody and visitation in 2022, but the DHS opposed their motion, citing past maltreatment substantiations against petitioner R.F.The Circuit Court of Wood County initially denied petitioners' motion for visitation and directed the DHS to conduct a home study. Although the DHS initially denied the home study based on past substantiations, the DHS's Board of Review later reversed these substantiations and ordered a new home study, which was ultimately approved. Despite this, the DHS, guardian ad litem, and foster parents opposed placement with the petitioners, arguing that A.F. was thriving with the foster parents and had no bond with the petitioners.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found that the circuit court's order denying petitioners' motions for custody and visitation lacked sufficient findings to demonstrate that it properly considered the grandparent preference statute, West Virginia Code § 49-4-114(a)(3). The court emphasized that the statute presumes placement with grandparents is in the best interests of the child unless the record shows otherwise. The court vacated the circuit court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to conduct a new evidentiary hearing and make detailed findings regarding the grandparent preference and the best interests of A.F. View "In re A.F." on Justia Law

Lazerek Austin, a state prisoner, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three medical providers, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Austin, representing himself, requested the court to recruit counsel due to his severe mental illness and lack of access to legal resources. The district court initially granted his motion for recruited counsel but was unable to find a volunteer attorney despite extensive efforts. Consequently, Austin continued to litigate his case pro se, participating in discovery and responding to motions.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois eventually granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that a reasonable jury could not find that they violated Austin’s constitutional rights. Austin appealed, arguing that the district court erred by not continuing to search for counsel after initially granting his motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court noted that federal courts cannot compel attorneys to provide free services to civil litigants and that the district court made reasonable efforts to recruit counsel. The court emphasized that the district court was not required to search indefinitely for a volunteer attorney and that it reasonably concluded Austin was capable of litigating his case pro se. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in its handling of Austin's motion for recruited counsel and its determination that Austin could proceed without counsel. View "Austin v. Hansen" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a cryptocurrency entrepreneur, initially filed a lawsuit in Puerto Rico against the defendants, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. The Puerto Rico court dismissed the case, citing a forum selection clause in the agreement between the parties that mandated litigation in Delaware.Following the dismissal, the plaintiff filed a new lawsuit in Delaware. The defendants counterclaimed, alleging breach of the forum selection clause and seeking damages for the expenses incurred in the Puerto Rico litigation. The plaintiff moved to dismiss this counterclaim, arguing that the defendants could not recover these expenses.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware reviewed the case. The court held that the defendants could indeed seek damages for breach of the forum selection clause, measured by the expenses incurred in the Puerto Rico litigation. The court referenced the Delaware Supreme Court's decision in El Paso, which allowed for the recovery of such damages. The court also clarified that the American Rule, which generally requires parties to bear their own litigation costs, does not preclude the recovery of damages measured by litigation expenses when those expenses are the direct result of a breach of contract.The court further noted that the forum selection clause created a contractual right for the defendants to be free from litigation in any forum other than Delaware. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the defendants should have sought these expenses in the Puerto Rico court, affirming that the defendants were entitled to enforce their contractual rights in Delaware.Ultimately, the Court of Chancery denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaim, allowing the defendants to pursue their claim for damages resulting from the breach of the forum selection clause. View "Namdar v. Fried" on Justia Law