Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

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

The plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendant, alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) after the defendant reported to the police that the plaintiff had sexually and physically assaulted her. This report led to the plaintiff being criminally charged, arrested, and held without bail for almost two years before being acquitted. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's report was false and made with malicious intent to harm him.The Superior Court, Windsor Unit, Civil Division, granted the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the defendant's statements to the police were absolutely privileged as communications preliminary to a judicial proceeding. The court also granted the defendant's special motion to strike under Vermont's anti-SLAPP statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041, and awarded attorney’s fees to the defendant. The court reasoned that the defendant's statements were protected under the anti-SLAPP statute as an exercise of her right to petition the government.The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's grant of judgment on the pleadings, agreeing that the defendant's statements to the police were absolutely privileged. The Court held that public policy supports extending absolute privilege to such statements to encourage free and full disclosure to law enforcement without fear of civil liability. The Court also affirmed the trial court's application of the anti-SLAPP statute, concluding that the defendant's statements were made in connection with a public issue and were an exercise of her constitutional rights. However, the Supreme Court remanded the case for the trial court to consider the plaintiff's constitutional challenges to the anti-SLAPP statute, which the trial court had not adequately addressed. View "Talandar v. Manchester-Murphy" on Justia Law

Carl Grant, a Vietnam War veteran suffering from dementia and PTSD, left his home in Conyers, Georgia, on February 2, 2020, and ended up in Birmingham, Alabama. Officer Vincent Larry of the Birmingham Police Department found Grant disoriented and detained him for a misdemeanor. Grant was taken to a hospital, where he was treated for minor injuries. While being escorted to the restroom, Larry allegedly assaulted Grant, causing severe spinal injuries that led to Grant's death on July 24, 2020. William Jenkins, representing Grant's estate, filed a lawsuit against Larry, the City of Birmingham, and various city officials.The Jefferson Circuit Court granted a summary judgment in favor of the City defendants, dismissing Jenkins's claims with prejudice on February 22, 2023. Jenkins filed a postjudgment motion on March 21, 2023, which was denied by operation of law on June 20, 2023. Jenkins also filed a "motion for clarification" on April 28, 2023, which the court purported to grant on June 21, 2023, reinstating claims against Larry and Scott Thurmond. However, this order was a nullity as the court had lost jurisdiction after the postjudgment motion was denied by operation of law.Jenkins filed a notice of appeal on November 3, 2023, which was dismissed as arising from a non-final order. He then filed another appeal on January 24, 2024, which was transferred to the Supreme Court of Alabama. The Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed the appeal, instructing the circuit court to vacate its June 21, 2023, order and all subsequent orders, as they were nullities. The February 22, 2023, judgment was deemed final, and Jenkins's failure to appeal it timely resulted in the dismissal of his current appeal. View "Jenkins v. City of Birmingham" on Justia Law

The case involves the father of J.M. (Father) appealing an order from the Circuit Court denying his motion to dismiss a neglect petition due to defective service of process. The New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) filed the petition after J.M.'s mother passed away, leaving J.M. without a caretaker. Father, who was living in Florida and had not seen J.M. for over a year, was served with the petition by a process server. He argued that service was defective because it was not performed by a law enforcement officer as required by RSA 169-C:8, I.The Circuit Court denied Father's motion to dismiss, and the adjudicatory hearing proceeded, resulting in a finding of neglect and an order for J.M.'s out-of-home placement. Father did not immediately appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss and participated in the hearing, leading to the waiver of his service of process challenge under Mosier v. Kinley.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and agreed with DCYF that Father waived his challenge by not appealing immediately. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the trial court's neglect finding, noting that Father had not seen J.M. for 18 months and had not provided any support for two years despite being financially able.The court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the neglect finding was supported by evidence and that the trial court did not err in continuing J.M.'s out-of-home placement instead of placing J.M. in Father's custody under DCYF supervision. The Supreme Court clarified that appeals from a denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction are discretionary and must be filed within 30 days. View "In re J.M." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs filed a premises liability suit against Waffle House, Inc. and WH Capital LLC in October 2019. In April 2021, the defendants filed a motion for sanctions due to the plaintiffs' alleged failure to comply with a discovery order. In July 2021, the plaintiffs dismissed their lawsuit without prejudice. In September 2021, the defendants filed a motion for attorneys' fees, arguing that the plaintiffs dismissed their lawsuit to escape sanctions. The plaintiffs then filed a renewal action. In July 2022, the trial court awarded the defendants $101,082 in attorneys' fees in the dismissed case.The plaintiffs sought to appeal the attorneys' fees award by filing an application for discretionary appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the application, concluding that because the plaintiffs had filed a renewal action, the case remained pending below, making the fee award a non-final order. Therefore, the plaintiffs were required to obtain a certificate of immediate review. The Court of Appeals relied on the case Eidson v. Croutch in its analysis.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and concluded that the renewal action was a new case, not a continuance of the dismissed case. Therefore, the dismissed case was no longer pending below. The court held that under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), the order awarding attorneys' fees was a final judgment, and no certificate of immediate review was required. The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the discretionary application and remanded the case for consideration of that application. View "COOK-ROSE v. WAFFLE HOUSE INC." on Justia Law

Laura Lazar sued real estate brokers Lynette Bishop, Shen Shulz, Sotheby’s International Realty, Inc., and Shen Realty, Inc. for breach of fiduciary duty related to the sale of her father's Malibu house. Lazar's father, Daniel Gottlieb, had assigned his causes of action to her. The complaint alleged that the brokers failed to disclose a dual agency and did not work to obtain the highest possible sale price, resulting in a sale price significantly lower than the house's value.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that Lazar lacked standing to sue because the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty was not assignable under Civil Code section 954. The court likened the relationship between a real estate broker and client to that of an attorney and client, which involves a highly personal and confidential relationship, making such claims nonassignable. Lazar appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that a cause of action for breach of a real estate broker’s fiduciary duties, which seeks only damages related to property rights and pecuniary interests, is assignable. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for the trial court to consider the remaining grounds argued in the defendants' motion. The appellate court found that the transactional nature of the broker-client relationship, unlike the attorney-client relationship, does not involve highly personalized rights of recovery, and thus, the claim is assignable. View "Lazar v. Bishop" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of sex-trafficking victims, were trafficked through advertisements posted on Backpage.com, an online advertisement forum. They sued Salesforce, a company that provided cloud-based software tools and related support services to Backpage. Salesforce moved for summary judgment on the grounds that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act bars Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs allege that Salesforce knowingly assisted, supported, and facilitated sex trafficking by selling its tools and operational support to Backpage even though it knew (or should have known) that Backpage was under investigation for facilitating sex trafficking.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Salesforce’s motion for summary judgment, holding that section 230 does not shield Salesforce because Plaintiffs’ claims do not treat Salesforce as a publisher or speaker of third-party content. After denying Salesforce’s motion for summary judgment, the district court sua sponte certified its order for interlocutory appeal, identifying three controlling questions of law on which there may be substantial grounds for difference of opinion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment. The court held that Plaintiffs’ claims do not treat Salesforce as the publisher or speaker of third-party content because they do not derive from Salesforce’s status or conduct as a publisher or speaker or impose on Salesforce any duty traditionally associated with publication. Therefore, section 230 does not provide immunity to Salesforce. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "A. B. v. Salesforce" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Willie Gray, filed a complaint for personal injuries sustained in a fire at a multifamily residential property in Providence on January 12, 2018. The property was allegedly owned by Dexter Jackson, whose negligence was claimed to have caused the fire. The City of Providence was also named as a defendant for being aware of several housing code violations at the property from January 2015 through January 2018. The plaintiff failed to provide adequate responses to the defendant's discovery requests, leading to a motion to compel and subsequent orders to produce more responsive answers.The Superior Court granted the defendant's motion to compel and later a motion to enter final judgment against the plaintiff due to non-compliance with discovery orders. The plaintiff did not object to these motions and failed to appear at the hearing for the renewed motion for entry of final judgment. The Superior Court denied the plaintiff's subsequent motion to vacate the order granting final judgment, citing a lack of objection and failure to comply with discovery requirements.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's order. The Court found that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to comply with discovery obligations and failed to do so. The trial justice did not abuse his discretion or commit an error of law in denying the plaintiff's motion for relief. The appeal was considered interlocutory, but the Court proceeded to evaluate the merits due to the futility of remanding for default judgment against Jackson, who had not participated in the litigation. The order of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Gray v. City of Providence" on Justia Law

Frank Cushenberry and his family sought damages from Barber Brothers Contracting Company, LLC, for injuries sustained in a vehicular accident on Interstate 10 in LaPlace, Louisiana. The trial court did not instruct the jury on certain duties and obligations, but this was not considered reversible error. The jury found Barber Brothers solely at fault and awarded significant general and loss of consortium damages to the Cushenberry family.The Court of Appeal, First Circuit, reviewed the case and the Louisiana Supreme Court initially reduced the general damages awarded to Mr. Cushenberry from $10,750,000 to $5,000,000, and the loss of consortium awards to his wife and children from $2,500,000 and $1,500,000 each to $400,000 and $100,000 each, respectively. The court also adjusted the fault allocation, assigning 20% fault to Mr. Cushenberry and 80% to Barber Brothers.Upon rehearing, the Louisiana Supreme Court re-examined the general damage and loss of consortium awards, considering the particular facts and circumstances of the case and prior awards in similar cases. The court found that the jury did not abuse its discretion in awarding $10,750,000 in general damages to Mr. Cushenberry, given the extensive physical and psychological injuries he sustained and their impact on his life and family. The court also amended the loss of consortium awards, increasing them to $1,000,000 for Mrs. Cushenberry and $500,000 each for the children, Noah and Khloe.The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court judgment as amended, maintaining the 20% fault allocation to Mr. Cushenberry and 80% to Barber Brothers. The court emphasized the importance of considering the particular injury to the particular plaintiff under the particular circumstances, alongside prior awards, in determining whether a general damage award is an abuse of discretion. View "BARBER BROTHERS CONTRACTING COMPANY, LLC VS. CAPITOL CITY PRODUCE COMPANY, LLC" on Justia Law

Teradata Corporation sued SAP SE, alleging that SAP illegally conditioned sales of its business-management software (S/4HANA) on the purchase of its back-end database engine (HANA) in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and misappropriated Teradata’s trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Teradata claimed that SAP’s tying arrangement forced customers to buy HANA, harming competition in the enterprise data warehousing (EDW) market. Teradata also alleged that SAP used its confidential batched merge method, a technique for efficient data aggregation, without authorization.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of SAP. The court excluded Teradata’s expert testimony on market definition and market power, finding the methodology unreliable. Without this testimony, the court concluded that Teradata failed to create a material dispute on its tying claim. The court also ruled against Teradata on the trade secret claim, stating that Teradata did not properly designate the batched merge method as confidential and that the agreements between the parties gave SAP the right to use the method.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment. The appellate court held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the expert’s testimony, which was based on reasonable methodologies. The court found that Teradata raised a triable issue regarding SAP’s market power in the tying market and the anticompetitive effects in the tied market. The court also determined that there were material factual disputes regarding whether Teradata properly designated the batched merge method as confidential and whether the agreements allowed SAP to use the method. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "TERADATA CORPORATION V. SAP SE" on Justia Law