Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Jane Roe, a student at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, reported to President Paige Patterson that she had been sexually assaulted by a fellow student, John Doe. Patterson notified the police, and Doe was expelled for violating the campus firearms policy. Later, Patterson was removed from his position by the university's board, partly due to his handling of Roe's complaint. In response, a group of donors published a letter accusing Roe of lying about the assault and claiming the encounters were consensual. Roe sued Patterson and the university for defamation, alleging that Patterson's agent provided the defamatory content for the letter.The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of Patterson, concluding that Colter, Patterson's chief of staff, had not acted as Patterson's agent in drafting the letter. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit found that there was a fact issue regarding Colter's agency and certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Texas.The Supreme Court of Texas held that a person who supplies defamatory material to another for publication can be liable if they intend or know that the material will be published. Additionally, a defamation plaintiff can survive summary judgment without identifying specific statements made by the defendant if the evidence is legally sufficient to support a finding that the defendant was the source of the defamatory content. The court emphasized that the plaintiff must show that the defendant was the source of the defamatory statements through direct or circumstantial evidence, but need not provide verbatim evidence of the underlying communication. The case was remanded to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "ROE v. PATTERSON" on Justia Law

Jessenia Burton, a student driver, was involved in a car accident during a drivers' education course on April 30, 2017. Burton and her parents sued several defendants, including West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, which provided coverage for the vehicles used in the course. Burton retained neuropsychologist Dr. Daniel Tranel, who conducted an evaluation and diagnosed her with a concussion, postconcussion syndrome, PTSD, and major depressive disorder. Dr. Tranel's report included summaries of psychological and neuropsychological tests administered to Burton.The Iowa District Court for Polk County granted West Bend's motion to compel the production of Dr. Tranel's psychological test material and test data. The court reasoned that since Burton made her mental condition an element of her claim, the information was discoverable under Iowa Code section 228.6(4)(a). The court ordered the information to be produced to West Bend and its attorneys, issuing a protective order to limit further disclosure.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The court held that Iowa Code section 228.9 explicitly prohibits the disclosure of psychological test material and test data in a judicial proceeding to anyone other than a licensed psychologist designated by the individual. The court emphasized that the statute's language is clear and unambiguous, and the only exception to this prohibition is disclosure to another licensed psychologist. The court concluded that the district court erred in granting the motion to compel and vacated the protective order. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation. View "Burton v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Company" on Justia Law

A vacancy on the Scott County Board of Supervisors occurred when Tony Knobbe resigned to become the Scott County Treasurer. A committee of county officials decided to fill the vacancy by appointment and kept certain applications confidential during the process. The committee referred to applicants by numbers and only revealed the name of the appointed individual. After the appointment, two individuals submitted open records requests for the confidential names and applications, which Scott County denied, citing Iowa Code section 22.7(18).The individuals filed a petition in the Iowa District Court for Scott County, which granted summary judgment in favor of Scott County, determining that the applications were exempt from disclosure under Iowa Code section 22.7(18). The district court relied on the precedent set in City of Sioux City v. Greater Sioux City Press Club, which held that employment applications could be kept confidential.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The court held that the applications for the vacant county board of supervisors position were not confidential under section 22.7(18). The court reasoned that the applicants were not promised confidentiality beforehand, and the public nature of the appointment process meant it was not reasonable to believe that people would be deterred from applying if their applications were disclosed. The court ordered that the names and applications be disclosed and awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiffs. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Diercks v. Scott County, Iowa" on Justia Law

Edward M.R., a special-education student in Washington, D.C.'s public schools, filed an administrative due process complaint on June 19, 2020, alleging that his individualized education plans (IEPs) from 2015 through 2019 were insufficient to meet his needs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). He claimed deficiencies in speech/language therapy, occupational therapy, and other areas. The hearing officer dismissed his claims, finding that challenges to his 2015, 2016, and 2017 IEPs were untimely and that his 2018 and 2019 IEPs were appropriate.Edward then sued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the hearing officer's determinations regarding the 2017, 2018, and 2019 IEPs. The district court affirmed the hearing officer's decisions, leading Edward to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Edward's challenge to his 2017 IEP was untimely, as it was filed more than two years after he knew or should have known about the alleged deficiencies. Regarding the 2018 and 2019 IEPs, the court found that Edward failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the hearing officer was wrong in concluding that the IEPs were appropriate. The court noted that repeating goals in the IEPs was reasonable given Edward's severe memory issues and that the IEPs included new, appropriately ambitious goals.The court also rejected Edward's claims that his IEPs lacked research-based instruction, finding that he received such instruction even if it was not explicitly stated in the IEPs. Finally, the court did not consider Edward's claim regarding the implementation of Applied Behavior Analysis, as it was not exhausted through the administrative process. The court affirmed the district court's decision. View "M.R. v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Nancy Johnson and Domenico Zurini were involved in a motor vehicle accident in Omaha, Nebraska. Just before the 4-year statute of limitations expired, Johnson and her husband filed a negligence complaint against Zurini in the district court for Douglas County. After attempting to serve summons, they discovered that Zurini had died before the complaint was filed. They then had a special administrator appointed and moved to revive the action in the name of the special administrator. The district court initially granted the motion, and the Johnsons filed an amended complaint naming the special administrator as the defendant. The special administrator entered a voluntary appearance and then moved to vacate the order of revivor and dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that no viable action had been commenced within the statute of limitations. The district court agreed and dismissed the action as time barred.The Johnsons appealed, and the case was moved to the Nebraska Supreme Court's docket. The court reviewed whether the Johnsons properly commenced their negligence action within the applicable statute of limitations. The court noted that the original complaint, which named a deceased person as the sole defendant, was a legal nullity and did not validly commence an action under Nebraska law. The court also found that the amended complaint, which named the special administrator as the defendant, was filed after the limitations period expired and did not relate back to the original complaint under Nebraska's relation back statute.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the original complaint was a legal nullity and did not commence an action. The amended complaint was time barred, and the relation back statute did not apply. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to vacate the order of revivor and substitution. View "Johnson v. Antoniutti" on Justia Law

The Town of Apple Valley (TAV) sought to condemn a private water utility system through eminent domain. In November 2015, TAV passed two resolutions of necessity (RON) to acquire the system, which was owned by Carlyle Infrastructure Partners and operated by Apple Valley Ranchos Water (AVR). In January 2016, TAV filed an eminent domain action, and Carlyle sold the system to Liberty Utilities. After a 67-day bench trial, the trial court found that TAV did not have the right to acquire the system and entered judgment for Liberty, awarding attorney’s fees. TAV appealed.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County ruled that Liberty only needed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the public necessity elements were not met, and that the administrative record (AR) was irrelevant. The trial court allowed Liberty to present any evidence it deemed relevant, including post-RON evidence, and found in favor of Liberty.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the trial court applied the wrong standard of review by not using the gross abuse of discretion standard. The trial court also erred by not admitting the AR, failing to start its analysis with the RON’s findings, and improperly allowing Liberty to rely solely on post-RON evidence. The appellate court emphasized that the rebuttable presumption in favor of TAV’s findings should have been the starting point for the trial court’s analysis.The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, allowing the trial court to determine whether to permit TAV to take the water system, remand the matter to TAV for further administrative proceedings, or hold a new trial applying the correct standards. The judgment and attorney’s fees award were reversed, and TAV was allowed to recover its costs on appeal. View "Town of Apple Valley v. Apple Valley Ranchose Water" on Justia Law

Charles and Yvette Whittier sued Ocwen Loan Servicing, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Merscorp, and Mortgage Electronic Registration System to prevent the foreclosure of their home mortgage loan. The parties reached a settlement and notified the district court, which issued an interim order of dismissal pending final documentation. The parties then filed a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Action under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and a proposed Order of Dismissal With Prejudice, which stated that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. However, the court's dismissal order did not explicitly retain jurisdiction or incorporate the settlement terms.The Whittiers later filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement and sought attorneys' fees. The defendants argued that the court lacked ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. A magistrate judge recommended enjoining foreclosure proceedings, and the district judge adopted this recommendation, issuing an injunction in April 2020. Over two years later, PHH and Deutsche Bank moved to reopen the case and dissolve the injunction, claiming the Whittiers were in default. A different magistrate judge found that the court lacked ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and recommended dissolving the injunction. The district judge agreed, dissolved the injunction, and dismissed the suit with prejudice in May 2024, explicitly declining jurisdiction over the settlement agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the district court lacked ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement because the dismissal order did not expressly retain jurisdiction or incorporate the settlement terms. The court affirmed the district court's decision to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the case with prejudice. View "Whittier v. Ocwen Loan Servicing" on Justia Law

Michael Horton, an Alabama prisoner, filed a pro se lawsuit against two correctional officers, alleging that they subjected him to an unconstitutional body-cavity search. Horton claimed that during an institution-wide search, he was ordered to strip and undergo a body-cavity search in the presence of female officers, which violated his religious beliefs. Horton's complaint included claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and sought injunctive relief.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama required the officers to provide documents and evidence, and Horton was given an opportunity to respond. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers and dismissed Horton’s lawsuit with prejudice. Horton argued that the district court erred by not allowing him to amend his complaint to include new factual allegations before granting summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the rule requiring a pro se plaintiff to be given an opportunity to amend their complaint before dismissal with prejudice applies only in the context of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals, not summary judgment. The court found that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment without sua sponte allowing Horton to amend his complaint. The court also noted that Horton had been given sufficient notice and opportunity to respond to the summary judgment motion but failed to provide a signed declaration with new facts.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Horton was not entitled to amend his complaint sua sponte before the summary judgment was granted. View "Horton v. Captain Gilchrist" on Justia Law

On January 13, 2020, Denise Likness ran a red light and collided with Breyanna Geerdes' car at an intersection in Watertown, South Dakota. Likness admitted fault for the accident. Geerdes claimed the accident caused her physical injuries, including neck pain, headaches, and back pain, as well as anxiety and anger outbursts. She received treatment from a chiropractor and a clinic, and attended physical therapy sessions. Sixteen months after the accident, she reported pain again and was diagnosed with upper cervical instability and neck curvature. Evidence showed Geerdes had similar symptoms before the accident.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Codington County, South Dakota, presided over the case. During the trial, Likness admitted fault but contested the extent of Geerdes' injuries and their connection to the accident. The jury found that Likness' negligence was not the legal cause of Geerdes' injuries. Geerdes filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the causation issue should not have been submitted to the jury. The circuit court did not rule on the motion, resulting in its automatic denial under SDCL 15-6-59(b).The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that Likness' counsel's statements during the trial did not constitute judicial admissions of causation. The court concluded that the statements were made in the context of arguing the extent of damages and were not intended to relieve Geerdes of her burden to prove causation. The court affirmed the circuit court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. View "Geerdes v. Likness" on Justia Law

The Garretts owned 5,200 acres of farmland in Sully County and faced financial difficulties, leading them to sell the property to the Stocks. The Stocks agreed to lease the land back to the Garretts for five years, with an option for the Garretts to repurchase it. The Garretts failed to make timely lease payments, prompting the Stocks to initiate an eviction action. The Stocks alleged that the Garretts had not only failed to pay rent but also committed waste on the property.The Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Sully County held a two-day trial, where the jury found in favor of the Stocks, granting them immediate possession of the farmland. The Garretts appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying their motion to dismiss, their motion for judgment as a matter of law, and their motion for a new trial. They also contended that the court erred in denying their proposed jury instructions.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decisions. The court held that the Stocks had complied with the three-day notice to quit requirement and that the mandatory mediation provisions did not apply as the relationship was that of lessor and lessee, not creditor and borrower. The court also found that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Garretts' proposed jury instructions, as the instructions given adequately covered the applicable law. Finally, the court concluded that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence, and the circuit court did not err in denying the Garretts' motions for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial. The Supreme Court also awarded the Stocks $5,000 in appellate attorney fees. View "Stock v. Garrett" on Justia Law