Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Henry Jones, a prisoner, filed a lawsuit against nurse Amanda Lamb, alleging that she refused to provide him medical treatment for a broken hand and later denied him pain medication. Jones claimed he could not exhaust administrative remedies because prison officials did not deliver responses to his grievances. Lamb raised the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of Lamb, concluding that Jones had unexhausted administrative remedies available for both claims. The court found Jones's assertion that he did not receive the grievance responses not credible, particularly because he had attached his counselor's response to his complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether administrative remedies were available to Jones for his medical treatment claim. Specifically, the court found that Jones's declaration that he did not receive the warden's decisions created a genuine issue of fact that should have precluded summary judgment. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's decision on this claim and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to resolve the exhaustion dispute.However, the court affirmed the district court's decision regarding Jones's pain medication claim. Jones did not contest that he received a response directing him to resubmit his grievance and failed to do so. Thus, the court concluded that Jones had unexhausted administrative remedies available for this claim.The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Jones v. Lamb" on Justia Law

A dental hygienist brought claims for sex discrimination, retaliation, and negligence against her former employer and supervisors. She alleged that her supervisor made repeated sexual advances and harassed her throughout her employment. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the retaliation claims and allowed the other claims to proceed to trial. A jury awarded the plaintiff $575,000 in emotional distress damages and $2 million in punitive damages. However, the district court granted a motion for a new trial, finding the damages excessive and indicative of unfair prejudice. In the second trial, the court precluded certain evidence, and the jury awarded the plaintiff only $1 in nominal damages.The plaintiff appealed the district court’s summary judgment ruling, the order granting a new trial, and the evidentiary rulings. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on the retaliation claims, agreeing that the plaintiff did not engage in protected activity as required for such claims. The court also upheld the district court’s decision to grant a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion in the determination that the jury’s damages award was excessive and indicative of prejudice. Additionally, the court affirmed the district court’s evidentiary rulings, including the exclusion of the plaintiff’s psychiatric records, portions of a coworker’s deposition testimony, and an anonymous fax.The Second Circuit concluded that the district court did not err in any of its challenged rulings and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Qorrolli v. Metropolitan Dental Associates" on Justia Law

A mother and her fiancé filed a petition to terminate the biological father's parental rights and allow the fiancé to adopt the child. The mother did not serve the father with the petition, and he did not participate in the proceedings. The magistrate court terminated the father's parental rights and granted the adoption. The father later filed two motions to set aside the judgment, arguing that his due process rights were violated due to lack of notice. The magistrate court denied the second motion, citing res judicata. The district court reversed this decision, finding that the father's due process argument warranted consideration.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the father's Rule 60(b)(4) motion, which alleged a fundamental error violating his constitutional right to due process, was not barred by res judicata. The court applied the fundamental error doctrine, which allows for exceptions to procedural bars when a fundamental constitutional right is at stake. The court also rejected the mother's arguments that the father's motion was barred by the doctrines of claim splitting, invited error, appellate waiver, and the law of the case.The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision to remand the case to the magistrate court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the father's Rule 60(b)(4) motion was timely and whether the termination and adoption judgment was void. The court also awarded the father partial attorney fees on appeal for defending against certain arguments made by the mother. View "Doe v. Doe" on Justia Law

Sysco Machinery Corp. ("Sysco"), a Taiwanese company, sued two other Taiwanese companies, Cymtek Solutions, Inc. ("Cymtek") and Cymmetrik Enterprise Co. Ltd. ("Cymmetrik"), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Sysco alleged that Cymtek and Cymmetrik infringed its copyrights and misappropriated its trade secrets related to a rotary die-cutting machine developed in Taiwan. The alleged infringing activities occurred in Taiwan, but Sysco claimed that the effects of these activities extended to the United States.Sysco initially pursued legal action in Taiwan's Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (IPCC) and obtained a preliminary injunction against Cymtek and its employees. However, the proceedings in Taiwan are ongoing. Sysco then filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, which it voluntarily dismissed. Subsequently, Sysco filed the current lawsuit in the District of Massachusetts, asserting claims of trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, unfair and deceptive acts, and tortious interference.The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, concluding that Taiwan was a more appropriate forum for the dispute. Sysco appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.The First Circuit reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion and affirmed the dismissal. The court held that Taiwan was an adequate alternative forum, as it could exercise jurisdiction over the parties and provide sufficient remedies for the alleged intellectual property violations. The court also found that the private and public interest factors favored litigation in Taiwan, given that the majority of evidence and witnesses were located there, and the alleged infringing activities primarily occurred in Taiwan. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens. View "Sysco Machinery Corp. v. Cymtek Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

Troy Olhausen, a former Senior Vice President of Business Development and Marketing at Arriva Medical, LLC, filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act against his former employers, Arriva, Alere, Inc., and Abbott Laboratories, Inc. He alleged that the defendants submitted fraudulent claims to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for reimbursement. Specifically, Olhausen claimed that Arriva submitted claims without obtaining required assignment-of-benefits signatures and failed to disclose or accredit certain call-center locations that processed claims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed Olhausen’s third amended complaint, holding that he failed to plead with the particularity required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) that any fraudulent claims were actually submitted to the government. The district court found that Olhausen did not provide sufficient details to establish that false claims had been submitted, as he did not work in the billing department and lacked firsthand knowledge of the claim submissions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that Olhausen adequately pled with particularity that allegedly false claims were submitted under Count II, which involved claims for heating pads that lacked assignment-of-benefits signatures. The court found that the internal audit allegations provided sufficient indicia of reliability to satisfy Rule 9(b). However, the court upheld the dismissal of Count IV, which alleged that Arriva failed to disclose or accredit certain call-center locations, as Olhausen did not adequately allege that any claims involving these locations were actually submitted. Consequently, the court vacated the dismissal of Counts II and VI (conspiracy) and remanded them for further proceedings, while affirming the dismissal of Count IV. View "Olhausen v. Arriva Medical, LLC" on Justia Law

Pharma Conference Education, Inc. entered into an agreement with the University of Tennessee Health Science Center to produce pharmaceutical continuing education programs "as is feasible." The Health Science Center terminated the agreement before any programs were held. Pharma sued to enforce the agreement, but the State argued that the agreement lacked consideration and was not a valid contract. The key issue was whether the promise to produce programs "as is feasible" constituted consideration or was an illusory promise.The Tennessee Claims Commission granted summary judgment in favor of the State, concluding that the agreement lacked consideration because Pharma's promise was illusory. The Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing that Pharma's promise gave it complete discretion and was therefore illusory. Both courts relied on the deposition testimony of Pharma's president, John W. Smith, to support their conclusions.The Supreme Court of Tennessee reviewed the case and held that Pharma's promise to produce as many programs "as is feasible" constitutes adequate consideration. The Court explained that the term "feasible" has an objective meaning and does not give Pharma unfettered discretion. The Court also noted that the statutory presumption of consideration under Tennessee Code Annotated section 47-50-103 applies, and the State failed to rebut this presumption. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the Claims Commission for further proceedings, including consideration of the State's argument regarding mutual assent. View "Pharma Conference Education, Inc. v. State" on Justia Law

In Michigan, citizens can amend the state constitution through ballot initiatives without legislative approval. Two state senators and nine state representatives challenged the use of such initiatives to regulate federal elections, arguing it violated the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause. They sought to prevent Michigan officials from enforcing these amendments.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed the case, ruling that the legislators lacked standing to sue under Civil Rule 12(b)(1). The court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a concrete injury necessary for standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the legislators did not have standing because they did not represent the entire legislature or a controlling bloc within it. The court distinguished this case from precedents where entire legislatures or controlling blocs had standing to sue. The court emphasized that individual legislators generally lack standing to assert institutional injuries of the legislature. The court also noted that the legislators had not shown that their votes were nullified by the amendments, as required for standing under relevant Supreme Court precedents.The Sixth Circuit concluded that the legislators' claims did not meet the requirements for standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, as they did not suffer a concrete and particularized injury. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. View "Lindsey v. Whitmer" on Justia Law

Angela Reading, a mother and former school board member, alleged that federal and local government officials violated her First Amendment rights by censoring and retaliating against her after she posted comments on Facebook. The controversy began when Reading criticized a poster at her child's elementary school that featured various sexual identities. Her post drew significant attention and backlash from military personnel at a nearby base, leading to a series of communications and actions by local and federal officials, including heightened security at a school board meeting and referrals to counter-terrorism authorities.Reading sought a preliminary injunction to prevent further interference with her free speech rights. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied her motion, concluding that she failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and focused on whether Reading had standing to seek a preliminary injunction. The court found that the bulk of the alleged unlawful conduct occurred during a brief period and had significantly subsided by the time Reading filed her lawsuit. The court determined that Reading did not show a substantial risk of future harm or a likelihood of future injury traceable to the defendants. Consequently, the court held that Reading lacked standing to seek a preliminary injunction and affirmed the District Court's order denying her motion. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Reading v. North Hanover Township" on Justia Law

Howard University’s Board of Trustees amended the institution’s bylaws to remove trustee positions that had been filled by alumni, students, and faculty for several decades. A group of alumni sued the University and the Board in D.C. Superior Court, seeking a declaration that the Board’s amendment was ultra vires because it violated the governing bylaws. Howard removed the case to federal court, arguing that the governance dispute hinged on the University’s federal charter. The alumni moved to remand the case back to state court.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied the alumni’s motion to remand, holding that the suit implicated a significant federal issue under Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing. The District Court then granted Howard’s motion to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and held that the District Court erred in exercising jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals determined that the case did not arise under federal law nor present a significant, disputed federal issue under Grable. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Jenkins v. Howard University" on Justia Law

Plaintiff John Doe filed a class action lawsuit against Integris Health, Inc., alleging that Integris collected confidential health information from its website visitors and unlawfully shared it with third parties like Google and Facebook. Doe's complaint, filed in Oklahoma state court, asserted state law claims including negligence, invasion of privacy, and breach of fiduciary duty. Integris removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, claiming it was acting under the direction of a federal officer by helping the federal government achieve its objective of ensuring patient access to electronic health records (EHR).The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma remanded the case to state court, concluding that Integris had not demonstrated it was "acting under" the direction of a federal officer. The court found that Integris was merely complying with federal regulations, which is insufficient to establish federal officer jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that Integris was not "acting under" a federal officer because it was only complying with federal regulations and not fulfilling a basic government task. The court emphasized that compliance with federal law, even if highly detailed and supervised, does not equate to acting under a federal officer. The court also noted that Integris's use of tracking technology on its website was not required by the federal government and was not part of any federal directive. Therefore, the court concluded that removal under the federal officer removal statute was improper. View "Doe v. Integris Health" on Justia Law