Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Gleysi Idalia Diaz-Valdez, a Guatemalan national, entered the United States in May 2019 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, citing persecution by gang members in Guatemala. An immigration judge (IJ) denied her requests on August 6, 2021. Diaz attempted to appeal the IJ's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) by sending her Notice of Appeal via FedEx's next-day delivery service on September 4, 2021, expecting it to arrive by the September 7 deadline. However, FedEx delivered the package on September 8, resulting in the BIA summarily dismissing her appeal as untimely.Diaz then requested the BIA to accept her late filing, arguing that FedEx's failure to deliver on time warranted equitable tolling of the appeal deadline. The BIA construed her request as a motion to reconsider its summary dismissal but denied the motion, stating that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Diaz had delivered the appeal to FedEx on September 4 and that the federal holiday was not an extraordinary circumstance.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision. The court found that the BIA applied the incorrect legal standard by disregarding the representation of Diaz's counsel and failing to consider supporting evidence, such as the FedEx label and tracking information. The court also held that the BIA abused its discretion by not applying its own precedent from Matter of Morales-Morales, which allows for equitable tolling when a guaranteed delivery service fails to fulfill its guarantee.The First Circuit granted Diaz's petition, vacated the BIA's order, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, instructing the BIA to reevaluate Diaz's diligence and the extraordinary circumstances under the correct legal standards. View "Diaz-Valdez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Juan A., a teenager and dependent of the juvenile court, was removed from parental custody and placed in long-term foster care after the court found he was not adoptable and no one was willing to be his legal guardian. The court terminated family reunification services but did not terminate parental rights. Juan attended many hearings during his dependency case but was not present at the status review hearing that is the subject of this appeal. At that hearing, the court denied Juan’s trial counsel’s request for a brief continuance to allow Juan to be present, which was found to be an error as Juan had a right to be present under Welfare and Institutions Code section 349.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County declared Juan a dependent of the court in January 2020, removed him from parental custody, and ordered family reunification services for his mother. In August 2021, the court terminated these services. At a section 366.26 review hearing in June 2023, the court decided not to terminate parental rights, finding Juan not adoptable and no potential legal guardians available. The court ordered Juan to remain in foster care with permanent placement services. In March 2024, the court denied a continuance request for Juan to attend the permanency planning review hearing, found his placement appropriate, and scheduled the next review hearing for September 2024.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case and found that the juvenile court erred in denying the continuance request, as Juan had a statutory right to be present at the hearing. The court held that this error prejudiced Juan, as his presence could have allowed him to request additional services to improve his academic performance and employment prospects. The appellate court reversed the orders issued at the March 28, 2024 hearing and remanded the case for a new status review hearing in accordance with section 349. View "In re Juan A." on Justia Law

Friends of the South Fork Gualala (FSFG) filed a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) proceeding against the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE) challenging the approval of a timber harvesting plan by Richardson Ranch, LLC. FSFG's counsel, Daniel Garrett-Steinman, who suffers from bipolar disorder, requested multiple extensions and accommodations under rule 1.100 of the California Rules of Court, citing his disability. The trial court granted six such requests over eight months but denied a seventh request for further extensions and relief from procedural obligations.The Sonoma County Superior Court had previously granted FSFG's petition in part, vacating CalFIRE's approval of the timber plan due to inadequate consideration of various environmental impacts. However, the court denied FSFG's claim that the late publication of a complete response to public comments rendered the approval defective. FSFG appealed, arguing that the trial court's denial of the seventh accommodation request deprived them of a fair opportunity to litigate the issue.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the seventh accommodation request. The appellate court found that the trial court had reasonably concluded that granting another extension would create an undue financial and administrative burden and fundamentally alter the nature of the expedited CEQA proceeding. The court also noted that FSFG had the option to retain additional counsel, which would not deny them access to judicial services. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed, and respondents were awarded their costs on appeal. View "Friends of the So. Fork Gualala v. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection" on Justia Law

Cristin Dent filed a Title VII racial discrimination claim against her former employer, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. Dent received a notice of right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on April 5, 2023, giving her until July 5, 2023, to file her complaint. Her attorney attempted to file the complaint on July 4, 2023, but failed to complete the online submission process. The complaint was ultimately filed on July 10, 2023, five days late. Dent requested that the district court deem her complaint timely by equitably tolling the statutory period for filing.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted Charles Schwab’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that Dent’s complaint was time-barred. The court denied Dent’s request for equitable tolling, concluding that her attorney’s failure to follow the court’s instructions and local rules on submitting complaints did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting such relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, agreeing that equitable tolling is an extraordinary remedy and that Dent’s attorney’s mistake was merely “garden variety” neglect, not an extraordinary circumstance. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for equitable tolling and in granting the motion to dismiss. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Dent v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc." on Justia Law

A group of car owners from ten states sued Nissan, alleging that certain models equipped with automatic electronic braking systems had a defect causing "phantom activations" at inappropriate times, such as at railroad crossings or in parking garages. The plaintiffs claimed this defect breached warranties, constituted fraud, violated consumer protection statutes, and unjustly enriched Nissan. They sought to certify ten statewide classes of owners or lessees of the affected models.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee certified the ten classes under Civil Rule 23(b)(3), finding that the plaintiffs had demonstrated common questions of law or fact. Nissan appealed, arguing that the classes did not meet the requirements for certification, particularly due to differences in the software updates that had been applied to the braking systems over time.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court had not conducted a rigorous analysis of the commonality requirement. The appellate court noted that the district court failed to consider the material differences in the software updates and how these differences might affect the existence of a common defect. Additionally, the district court did not analyze the elements of each state law claim to determine whether they could be resolved with common answers.The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's certification of the classes and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court emphasized the need for a detailed examination of the elements of each claim and the impact of the software updates on the alleged defect. The court also held that the district court must perform a Daubert analysis to ensure the reliability of the plaintiffs' expert testimony, which was critical to establishing the commonality of the defect across the different models and software versions. View "IN RE: NISSAN NORTH AMERICA,INC. LITIGATION" on Justia Law

A driver, Safet Miftari, was injured in an accident caused by an uninsured motorist while driving his taxi. He filed a claim for coverage under a policy he had for a different vehicle, which was denied by his insurer, Umialik Insurance Co., because the policy excluded uninsured and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage for vehicles not insured under the same policy. Miftari then sued the uninsured motorist, who defaulted, and a jury awarded Miftari $1 million in noneconomic damages. Subsequently, Miftari sued Umialik to enforce the judgment.The Superior Court of Alaska, Fourth Judicial District, granted Miftari’s motion for partial summary judgment, holding that Umialik was bound by the prior judgment under the doctrine of res judicata. The court also denied Umialik’s motion to prevent Miftari from pursuing economic damages. In a separate order, the court held that the insurance policy’s exclusion of UIM coverage for injuries sustained in any of the policyholder’s vehicles insured under a separate policy was not authorized by Alaska law.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. It held that Alaska law does not authorize excluding UIM coverage for a vehicle not insured under the same insurance policy under which UIM coverage is sought. The court also concluded that res judicata prohibits the parties from relitigating noneconomic damages and litigating economic damages against the insurer. The court affirmed the superior court’s orders on summary judgment, binding Umialik to the jury’s damages verdict and precluding Miftari from seeking economic damages. View "Umialik Insurance Co. v. Miftari" on Justia Law

Gordon Clark, acting on his own behalf and as the executor of his late wife’s estate, filed a lawsuit against Wells Fargo, Santander Bank, and other defendants, alleging various tort claims and violations of federal law related to the foreclosure of his wife’s home. The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut ordered Clark to obtain outside counsel to represent the estate, as it had other beneficiaries and creditors besides Clark.The district court reviewed the probate records and concluded that Clark, a pro se litigant, could not represent the estate due to the presence of other beneficiaries and creditors, including Santander Bank. The court directed Clark to retain counsel for the estate by a specific date, failing which his claims on behalf of the estate would be dismissed. Clark’s motion for reconsideration was granted, but the court adhered to its decision. Clark’s second motion for reconsideration was denied, leading him to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the district court’s rulings denying an estate representative’s motion to proceed pro se. The standard of review for such decisions was determined to be de novo, as they involve the application of law to the facts of a given dispute. Applying de novo review, the court concluded that the district court did not err in denying Clark’s motion to proceed pro se, as the estate had other beneficiaries and creditors. Consequently, the Second Circuit affirmed the orders of the district court. View "Clark v. Santander Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

In 2021, the Texas Legislature enacted Senate Bill 8, known as the Texas Heartbeat Act, which prohibits physicians from performing abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. The Act allows enforcement only through private civil actions. Plaintiffs, including Allison Van Stean and various Planned Parenthood entities, alleged that Texas Right to Life (TRTL) organized efforts to sue those violating the Act. They filed multiple suits challenging the Act's constitutionality and sought injunctions to prevent TRTL from enforcing it. The cases were consolidated, and TRTL filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), both challenging the plaintiffs' standing. The trial court denied both motions.TRTL appealed the denial of the TCPA motion, but the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas affirmed the trial court's order, stating that the TCPA did not apply to the plaintiffs' claims. The court did not address the standing issue raised by TRTL. TRTL then petitioned for review.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the Court of Appeals erred by not addressing the standing issue, which is a prerequisite for subject-matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court emphasized that jurisdictional questions must be resolved before addressing the merits of a case. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue. If the plaintiffs lack standing, the case should be dismissed; if they have standing, the Court of Appeals should then address the merits of the TCPA motion. View "TEXAS RIGHT TO LIFE v. STEAN" on Justia Law

Several landowners owned a tract of land near the intersection of a highway and Interstate 35. The Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) planned to modernize the interchange and condemned a strip of the landowners' property. The landowners anticipated being able to install a commercial entrance to the highway based on prior discussions with the DOT. However, the DOT's formal notice of condemnation indicated that all rights of direct access to the highway would be taken. The landowners filed actions challenging the condemnation after being informed that commercial access would not be allowed.The Iowa District Court for Story County dismissed the landowners' actions as untimely, citing the thirty-day deadline for challenging the exercise of eminent domain authority under Iowa Code section 6A.24(1). The landowners also delayed filing their notice of appeal in the district court, which was filed fifty-seven days after the dismissal order, although it was served on the DOT within twenty-two days.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the delay in filing the notice of appeal was not fatal, as the thirty-five days from service to actual filing was deemed a reasonable time under Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.101(4). However, the court found that the landowners' challenge to the condemnation was untimely under Iowa Code section 6A.24(1), which requires actions to be commenced within thirty days after service of notice of assessment. The court held that this statute is the exclusive method for challenging the exercise of eminent domain authority and does not allow for exceptions or the application of a discovery rule. Consequently, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the landowners' case. View "Brendeland v. Iowa Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

A landowner in Hardin County, Iowa, refused to allow a surveyor for a pipeline developer to enter his private property. The developer, Summit Carbon Solutions, LLC, sought access under Iowa Code section 479B.15, which governs hazardous liquid pipelines. The district court ordered the landowner to allow the surveyor temporary access, rejecting the landowner’s claims that the statute was unconstitutional under the “takings” clauses of the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions and that carbon dioxide in a supercritical state is not a “hazardous liquid.”The Iowa District Court for Hardin County ruled that the statute was facially constitutional and that Summit was a “pipeline company” with access rights under section 479B.15. The court found that Summit had provided proper statutory notice to the landowner and that the landowner’s claim of having a tenant who did not receive notice was not credible. The court granted Summit’s request for injunctive relief to compel access for surveying.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that section 479B.15 is a lawful pre-existing limitation on the landowner’s title, consistent with longstanding background restrictions on property rights, and does not constitute a taking under the Federal or Iowa Constitutions. The court also held that supercritical carbon dioxide is a “hazardous liquid” within the meaning of section 479B.2, making Summit a pipeline company with access rights under the statute. The court found that Summit had complied with the statutory notice requirements and that no additional showing of irreparable harm was required for the injunction. The judgment and injunctive relief granted by the district court were affirmed. View "Summit Carbon Solutions, LLC v. Kasischke" on Justia Law