Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Richard Hoffer filed a lawsuit against the City of Yonkers, the City of Yonkers Police Department, and several individual police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the officers used excessive force during his arrest. The case went to trial, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the officers. Hoffer appealed the district court's decision, specifically challenging the court's denial of his request for an adverse inference instruction due to a missing video of him being tased.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York presided over the initial trial. Hoffer requested an adverse inference instruction based on the missing video, arguing that the video was crucial evidence. The district court denied this request, finding insufficient evidence to prove that the video was intentionally destroyed to deprive Hoffer of its use in litigation. The jury ultimately found in favor of the officers, and Hoffer's subsequent motion to set aside the verdict was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that to impose sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)(2), it must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence that a party acted with an "intent to deprive" another party of the lost information. The court clarified that the lesser "culpable state of mind" standard, which includes negligence, does not apply to Rule 37(e)(2) sanctions. Applying this standard, the Second Circuit concluded that the district court did not err in denying Hoffer's request for an adverse inference instruction and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hoffer v. Tellone" on Justia Law

Samuel Murray, a motor-vehicle operator for the District of Columbia Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS), was wrongfully terminated after taking leave due to an injury sustained at work. In September 2020, DYRS was ordered to reinstate Mr. Murray and awarded him back-pay with benefits. Mr. Murray did not initially request interest on the back-pay. In February 2021, he petitioned the Office of Employee Appeals (OEA) to reopen his case for enforcement of the back-pay and benefits, which had not yet been provided, and for the first time sought accrued interest on the back-pay.The OEA Administrative Judge (AJ) ruled that OEA had the authority to award interest on back-pay and ordered DYRS to pay Mr. Murray prejudgment interest. DYRS sought review in the Superior Court, which reversed the AJ's decision, holding that the AJ did not have jurisdiction to grant interest on the back-pay award. The Superior Court reasoned that the AJ's jurisdiction was limited to correcting the record, ruling on attorney fees, or processing enforcement petitions, and Mr. Murray's request for prejudgment interest fell outside these parameters.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The court held that D.C. Code § 1-606.03(c) clearly precluded Mr. Murray's belated request for prejudgment interest, as it was made over three months after the back-pay award became final and did not fall within the AJ's limited post-award jurisdiction. The court also noted that it did not address whether OEA has the authority to award prejudgment interest when timely requested or whether post-judgment interest could be part of enforcing an award not promptly paid. View "Murray v. District of Columbia Dep't of Youth and Rehabilitation Services" on Justia Law

In 2016, the DOJ sued Hinds County, Mississippi, under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, alleging unconstitutional conditions in the county's detention facilities. A consent decree was established to address these issues, but disputes over compliance led to ongoing litigation. The DOJ claimed the county failed to comply, citing worsening conditions, while the county sought to terminate the decree. The district court found partial compliance, held the county in contempt, and issued a new injunction focusing on the Raymond Detention Center (RDC). As a sanction, the court appointed a receiver to oversee compliance.The district court's decision was based on findings of ongoing constitutional violations at RDC, including inmate violence, inadequate staffing, and poor conditions. The court noted that despite some improvements, many issues persisted, such as severe understaffing and inadequate supervision, contributing to violence and unsafe conditions. The court also found deficiencies in use-of-force training, incident reporting, and investigations, which exacerbated the problems.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to retain the new injunction, finding that ongoing constitutional violations justified continued prospective relief. However, the appeals court found the new injunction overly broad in some respects and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing a receiver. The court also noted that the district court failed to make sufficient need-narrowness-intrusiveness findings for each of the receiver's duties as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Consequently, the appeals court affirmed the district court's decision in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings to address these issues. View "United States v. Hinds County Board of Supervisors" on Justia Law

John Doe, an individual with a serious mental illness, sued James V. McDonald, M.D., New York’s Commissioner of Health, and other defendants, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Act, and Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. Doe alleged that New York State regulations discriminated against him by preventing his readmission to Oceanview Manor Home for Adults, a Transitional Adult Home (TAH) where he previously resided. After filing the suit, the State allowed Doe to return to Oceanview, amended the regulations to permit readmission of former TAH residents with serious mental illness, and removed Oceanview’s classification as a TAH.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied the State’s motion for summary judgment, which argued that Doe lacked standing. The district court granted the State leave to file an interlocutory appeal. On appeal, the State contended that the district court erred in finding standing because Doe lacked a concrete plan to leave and seek readmission to Oceanview.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the State’s jurisdictional challenge should be assessed as a question of mootness, not standing, because it addressed events occurring after Doe filed the suit. The court found that Doe’s suit was moot because the State had allowed Doe to return to Oceanview, amended the regulations, and removed Oceanview’s TAH classification. Consequently, there was no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation would recur.The Second Circuit dismissed the appeal, vacated the district court’s order, and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Doe v. McDonald" on Justia Law

In 2012, the City of Providence suspended cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) pension benefits for retired police and fire department members. The retirees challenged this suspension, leading to a series of legal actions. Most retirees settled, agreeing to a ten-year suspension of their COLA benefits, but some plaintiffs opted out and pursued further legal action, claiming breach of contract and constitutional violations.The Superior Court granted partial summary judgment for the City on some claims and, after a bench trial, ruled against the plaintiffs on the remaining claims. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court in Andrews I found that the 2012 ordinance violated the separation of powers doctrine by attempting to override prior consent judgments and judicial decisions. The case was remanded, and the Superior Court reinstated the plaintiffs' COLAs and awarded accrued benefits but did not address prejudgment interest.The plaintiffs then sought prejudgment interest on the past-due COLA payments, which the Superior Court denied, reasoning that the damages were not contractual in nature but were awarded based on constitutional grounds. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The Court held that the plaintiffs' recovery of past-due COLAs was based on the enforcement of final judgments, not on a breach of contract. Since the award was rooted in constitutional law rather than contract law, the plaintiffs were not entitled to prejudgment interest under the relevant statute, which applies strictly to tort and contract claims. View "Andrews v. Lombardi" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, retired police officers and firefighters, challenged the constitutionality of a 2011 Medicare Ordinance enacted by the City of Providence, which required retirees to enroll in Medicare upon eligibility and terminated city-paid health care coverage for Medicare-eligible retirees. The plaintiffs, who opted out of a settlement agreement that provided certain Medicare-related benefits, sought retroactive reimbursement for out-of-pocket health care expenses incurred during the litigation.The Superior Court initially granted partial summary judgment in favor of the City on some claims and, after a bench trial, denied relief on the remaining claims. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court in Andrews II remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment consistent with the specific provisions of the 2013 Final and Consent Judgment, which did not include retroactive reimbursement for health care expenses.Upon remand, the plaintiffs sought reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses, but the Superior Court denied this request, concluding that such relief was outside the scope of the Supreme Court's mandate in Andrews II. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment, holding that the mandate in Andrews II did not contemplate or include retroactive relief for health care expenses. The Court emphasized that the mandate was prospective in nature and aligned with the 2013 Final and Consent Judgment, which did not provide for reimbursement of past expenses. The Court also noted that the plaintiffs had waived claims for individual damages during the trial and had not sought such damages in their amended complaint. View "Andrews v. Lombardi" on Justia Law

Gerard A. Kirsch, a member of Calvary Temple Church of Evansville, Inc., was injured while building a storage barn on the church's property. Kirsch fell from a ladder and sustained a severe arm injury. He sued the church, alleging negligence for failing to provide safe equipment and proper supervision.The Vanderburgh Superior Court denied the church's motion for summary judgment, which argued that Indiana Code section 34-31-7-2 limited the church's liability. The court held that a jury must decide if the church breached any duty to Kirsch. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, interpreting the statute narrowly to apply only to parts of the premises used primarily for worship services, thus allowing Kirsch's claim to proceed.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the term "premises" in Indiana Code section 34-31-7-2 includes the entire parcel of land owned by the church, not just the areas used primarily for worship services. Since the church's entire property is used primarily for worship services, the statute applies, limiting the church's liability to warning of hidden dangers and refraining from intentional harm. Kirsch admitted the church breached neither duty, leading the court to grant summary judgment in favor of the church. View "Calvary Temple Church of Evansville, Inc. v. Kirsch" on Justia Law

Great Plains Trucking Inc. and Lennis H. Beck (defendants) appealed a circuit court judgment in favor of Carrie S. Schultz and Robert C. Schultz, Sr. (plaintiffs), surviving parents of Robert C. Schultz, Jr., in a wrongful death action. Beck, a truck driver for Great Plains, collided with the plaintiffs' vehicle, resulting in the death of their son. The collision occurred in Wentzville, Missouri, under dark and rainy conditions. The plaintiffs' vehicle had fishtailed and was struck by another vehicle before Beck's truck collided with it.The Circuit Court of St. Charles County held a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict awarding the plaintiffs $10,000,000 in compensatory damages, $10,000,000 in aggravating circumstances damages against Great Plains, and $25,000 in aggravating circumstances damages against Beck. The circuit court entered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdicts and awarded post-judgment interest. The defendants filed a post-trial motion for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the circuit court overruled. The defendants then appealed.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The court found that the defendants did not preserve their claims of error for appellate review or that their preserved claims failed on the merits. Specifically, the court held that the defendants failed to preserve the issue of excluding expert testimony regarding the mother's impairment by THC because they did not object at trial. Additionally, the court found that the defendants did not preserve their objection to the participation of separate counsel for the plaintiffs throughout the trial.The court also held that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that Beck failed to keep a careful lookout and that the jury's award of aggravating circumstances damages against both Beck and Great Plains was supported by sufficient evidence. The court concluded that Beck's multiple violations of the Missouri CDL manual and Great Plains' acceptance of Beck's conduct demonstrated complete indifference or conscious disregard for the safety of others. View "Schultz vs. Great Plains Trucking, Inc." on Justia Law

A young child, Rustin Atkerson, tragically died from severe head trauma while under the care of his mother, Elaine Hurd, and her boyfriend, who had a history of domestic violence. Rustin's father, Ian Atkerson, and Rustin's estate sued the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF), alleging that their negligent investigation into reports of Rustin's injuries, including a broken arm, led to his death.The trial court denied DCYF's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Atkerson only needed to prove ordinary negligence, not gross negligence, to prevail. The court also largely excluded the testimony of retired Judge Kitty Ann Van Doorninck, who was to testify that a reasonable judge would not have removed Rustin from his mother's care based on the information available at the time. The trial court found her testimony would be unduly prejudicial.The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's rulings, holding that the applicable standard of care was gross negligence and that the trial court erred in excluding Judge Van Doorninck's testimony. The case was then brought before the Supreme Court of the State of Washington.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that RCW 4.24.595(1) applies to the early stages of child abuse and neglect investigations, requiring proof of gross negligence. The court also held that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding Judge Van Doorninck's testimony, as her testimony was relevant to the core issue of whether any negligence by the State caused a harmful placement decision. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Atkerson v. State of Washington, Department of Children, Youth & Families" on Justia Law

Jennifer Virden, a small business owner in Austin, Texas, ran for city council in 2020 and for mayor in 2022. The City of Austin has a regulation that prohibits candidates from fundraising outside a one-year period before the general election. Virden announced her candidacy for the 2022 election in March 2021, which was seven months before she could start fundraising under the ordinance. She filed a lawsuit challenging the one-year fundraising window as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially denied Virden's request for a preliminary injunction, finding no irreparable harm. Virden's interlocutory appeal was dismissed as moot after the fundraising window opened. The district court later granted summary judgment in part, ruling that the one-year fundraising window was unconstitutional and awarding nominal damages to Virden and her donor, William Clark. The court found that the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot since the 2022 election had ended and there were no concrete plans for future campaigns. The court also refused to consider evidence regarding Virden's desire to contribute to another candidate in the 2024 election, deeming the submission untimely.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's ruling that the one-year fundraising window was unconstitutional, agreeing that it violated the First Amendment. The court also upheld the award of nominal damages to Virden and Clark. Additionally, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider the late evidence regarding the 2024 election. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the suit was timely, Virden had standing, and the city's arguments were without merit. The court affirmed the district court's decision in its entirety. View "Virden v. City of Austin" on Justia Law