Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The case involves a challenge to a Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) rule that authorized state licenses for two residential facilities where the federal government detained mothers and children after their illegal entry into the United States. The plaintiffs, including detained mothers and Grassroots Leadership, Inc., sought to prohibit the detention of children at these facilities, arguing that the rule was invalid under state law. However, by the time the case reached the court of appeals, all the mothers and children had been released from the facilities.The trial court denied the pleas to the jurisdiction filed by the department and the facility operators, eventually ruling in favor of the plaintiffs by declaring the rule invalid and enjoining the department from granting licenses under it. The Third Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that their claims were moot since they were no longer detained. However, the court of appeals proceeded to address the merits of the case by invoking the "public-interest exception" to mootness and held the rule invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that Texas courts are not constitutionally authorized to adjudicate moot cases, even if they raise questions of considerable public importance. The court emphasized that mootness is a constitutional limitation on judicial power, and there is no "public-interest exception" to mootness in Texas. Consequently, the court reversed the court of appeals' judgment regarding its jurisdiction, vacated the judgment on the merits, and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES v. GRASSROOTS LEADERSHIP, INC" on Justia Law

Kristina Steets was severely injured in 2017 while working for Celebration Fireworks, Inc. The employer accepted liability for her total disability under the Workers' Compensation Act (WCA) in 2018. In 2019, Steets filed petitions to amend the description of her injuries and sought specific loss benefits. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) granted her petitions, and the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) and the Commonwealth Court affirmed. However, Steets died from her injuries while the Commonwealth Court's decision was pending.Steets' estate filed petitions seeking payment of the specific loss benefits awarded to her, which were still under appellate review at the time of her death. The WCJ denied the Estate's claims beyond funeral expenses, and the WCAB affirmed. The Commonwealth Court, in a split decision, also affirmed, ruling that specific loss benefits did not survive Steets' work-related death based on the precedent set by Estate of Harris v. WCAB (Sunoco, Inc.).The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and overruled Estate of Harris and Burns International Security Services, Inc. v. WCAB (Crist), which had held that Section 306(g) of the WCA was the exclusive means by which specific loss benefits survive the death of a worker. The Court held that Section 410 of the WCA applies, which states that if a claimant dies before the final adjudication of their claim, the compensation due to the claimant up to the date of death shall be paid to the dependents or, if there are no dependents, to the estate. Since Steets died before the final adjudication of her specific loss benefits claim, the employer was required to pay those benefits to her estate. The case was remanded to the WCJ to determine the amount of specific loss benefits due to the Estate. View "Steets v. Celebration Fireworks" on Justia Law

A group of appellants, including Firearms Owners Against Crime and two firearms dealers, filed a case against the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) Commissioner, alleging that PSP was not complying with the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act. The appellants claimed that PSP was intentionally understaffing its Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) Operations Section, leading to significant delays in background checks for firearm purchases, sometimes exceeding seven hours. They argued that these delays violated the statutory requirement for "instantaneous" or "immediate" background checks and caused financial harm to firearms dealers due to canceled transactions.The Commonwealth Court initially issued a preliminary injunction, finding that PSP had a statutory duty to employ sufficient personnel to ensure compliance with the Act and that the delays were causing financial harm to the dealers. However, the court later sustained PSP's preliminary objections, ruling that the statute did not specify a mandatory timeframe for background checks and that the operational decisions regarding staffing were discretionary. The court also dismissed the appellants' request for a refund of the $2.00 background check fee, as the statute did not provide for such refunds.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and held that while the statute did not require "instantaneous" responses, it did mandate that PSP provide results as quickly as possible with available resources. The court affirmed the Commonwealth Court's denial of injunctive and mandamus relief, as these would compel affirmative action barred by sovereign immunity. However, the court reversed the denial of declaratory relief, allowing the appellants to seek a judicial declaration of PSP's duties under the Act. The court also vacated the order denying leave to amend the petition, allowing the appellants to include new allegations regarding PSP's response to the preliminary injunction. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "Firearms Owners v. Comm'r of PSP" on Justia Law

Numerous plaintiffs filed claims against a law firm and its attorneys who represented them in mass-tort actions. The plaintiffs alleged mishandling and improper distribution of settlement funds obtained from these actions. After years of litigation and jurisdictional conflicts, the cases were brought before the Rankin County Circuit Court.The circuit court referred the cases to a special master who conducted hearings on various motions, including plaintiffs' motions to consolidate, defendants' motions to sever, and defendants' motions to re-open discovery. The special master recommended granting the plaintiffs' motions to consolidate and denying the defendants' motions to sever and re-open discovery. The circuit court adopted these recommendations by order on February 27, 2023. Defendants sought interlocutory appeals on all four cases, which were granted.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the decisions of the Rankin County Circuit Court. The court held that the plaintiffs' claims met the requirements for joinder of parties under Rule 20 and consolidation of cases under Rule 42. The court found that the claims arose from a distinct chain of events involving the same defendants, the same mass-tort litigation, and the same settlement funds. The court also determined that consolidating the cases would further judicial economy without prejudicing any party. Additionally, the court upheld the denial of defendants' motions to re-open discovery, noting that the litigation had been pending for years with no restrictions on discovery and much of the requested discovery had already been obtained. The case was remanded to the Rankin County Circuit Court for further proceedings. View "Freese v. Estate of Alford" on Justia Law

While incarcerated at Ellsworth Correctional Institution in Wisconsin, the plaintiff was sexually assaulted and physically abused by a correctional officer, James Faulkner. Faulkner was later criminally convicted for these acts and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. The plaintiff subsequently filed a civil suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 seeking damages from Faulkner and three supervisory officials, alleging violations of her constitutional rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to the supervisory officials, finding no evidence that they knew or should have known of Faulkner’s risk to inmates. The plaintiff did not appeal these rulings, effectively abandoning her claims against those defendants. Faulkner, having failed to answer the complaint, was found in default. The district court held a hearing to determine damages and ultimately awarded the plaintiff $1 million for pain and suffering and $3 million in punitive damages, but denied additional damages for lost income and future medical expenses due to insufficient and improperly presented evidence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s evidentiary rulings and the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the scope of Faulkner’s employment. The appellate court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion or commit legal error in excluding the plaintiff’s evidence on future damages, as the submissions failed to comply with statutory requirements and evidentiary rules. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments concerning employer liability, noting that the employer was not named as a party and that such issues were not properly before the court. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Dotson v. Faulkner" on Justia Law

A private fencing coach alleged that during a flight, a university’s assistant fencing coach sexually harassed and assaulted her. She reported the incident to the university’s head coach, who discouraged her from reporting it further and, along with the assistant coach, allegedly retaliated against her within the fencing community. The university later investigated and confirmed the harassment but found no policy violation. The coach sued the university, the two coaches, and the Title IX coordinator, claiming violations of Title IX and state-law torts.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina transferred the case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania due to improper venue and judicial efficiency. After the transfer, the plaintiff amended her complaint, and the defendants moved to dismiss. The transferee court dismissed the entire suit, holding that the plaintiff, as neither a student nor an employee, was outside the zone of interests protected by Title IX. It also dismissed the state-law tort claims as untimely or implausible.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that the zone-of-interests test applies to Title IX claims and that the plaintiff’s claims related to her exclusion from university-hosted fencing events and retaliation manifesting on campus were within that zone. The court affirmed the dismissal of the state-law tort claims against the university and its employees, except for the claims against the assistant coach, which were not time-barred under North Carolina’s three-year statute of limitations. The case was vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Oldham v. Penn State University" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Cockrum developed mesothelioma after working for Alcoa Inc. for several decades, where he was exposed to asbestos without adequate protective measures. Alcoa was aware of the dangers of asbestos and the potential for long-term health issues, but did not provide sufficient warnings or protections. Cockrum was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2022 and subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against Howmet Aerospace, Inc., the corporate successor to Alcoa, claiming deliberate intent to injure by exposing him to asbestos.The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Howmet, concluding that Cockrum could not meet the deliberate injury exception under Washington’s Industrial Insurance Act (IIA), which requires actual knowledge that injury was certain to occur. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, citing the precedent set in Walston v. Boeing Co., which held that employees could not sue for latent diseases like mesothelioma because they could not meet the required level of certainty.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case and overruled the Walston decision, recognizing it as incorrect and harmful. The court held that in cases of latent diseases, virtual certainty is sufficient to prove an employer’s actual knowledge that injury was certain to occur. This new standard does not alter the general requirement for immediate and visible injuries but is limited to latent disease cases. The court remanded the case to the trial court to determine summary judgment under the virtual certainty standard. View "Cockrum v. C.H. Murphy/Clark-Ullman, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2018, the City of Nashua approved a bond resolution to construct a performing arts center. Due to financing complications, the City formed two non-profit corporations to take advantage of a federal tax credit. In 2020, NPAC Corp., a private, for-profit corporation, was formed to aid in the tax credit process. NPAC is wholly owned by one of the non-profits, which is owned by the City. Laurie Ortolano requested NPAC's public records related to the center, but NPAC claimed it was not subject to the Right-to-Know Law (RSA chapter 91-A). Ortolano then filed a complaint seeking access to these records.The Superior Court dismissed Ortolano's complaint, agreeing with NPAC that it was not a public entity subject to RSA chapter 91-A. The court also dismissed the claims against the City, reasoning that the relief sought was derivative of the claim against NPAC. Additionally, the court denied Ortolano's motion to amend her complaint to allege constitutional violations because she failed to attach a proposed amended complaint.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. It affirmed the dismissal of the claims against the City, finding that Ortolano's complaint did not state an independent claim against the City. However, the court vacated the dismissal of the claims against NPAC, ruling that the trial court erred by not applying the "government function" test to determine if NPAC was a "public body" under RSA chapter 91-A. The court also upheld the trial court's denial of Ortolano's motion to amend her complaint, as the proposed amendment did not cure the defect in the original pleading.The case was remanded for the trial court to apply the "government function" test to determine whether NPAC is subject to the Right-to-Know Law. View "Ortolano v. City of Nashua" on Justia Law

A child, B.C.B., was born in a car where his parents were living. After being transported to a hospital, both B.C.B. and his mother tested positive for methamphetamine. The El Paso County Department of Human Services conducted a safety assessment and took temporary custody of B.C.B. due to the positive drug test. The Department filed a petition alleging that B.C.B. was dependent or neglected under Colorado law.The El Paso County District Court held an adjudicatory trial, where evidence was presented that B.C.B. had difficulty latching to breastfeed and exhibited symptoms potentially related to methamphetamine exposure. Three pediatricians testified about the potential long-term risks of methamphetamine exposure, although they could not definitively link the symptoms to the drug exposure. The jury found that B.C.B. was born affected by substance exposure and that his health or welfare was threatened by substance use. The trial court adjudicated B.C.B. as dependent or neglected and ordered continued custody with the Department.The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's adjudication, concluding that the Department had not provided sufficient evidence to show that B.C.B. was adversely affected by substance exposure at birth. The majority held that a positive drug test alone was insufficient to establish dependency or neglect under the amended statute.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and concluded that a positive drug test at birth satisfies the first prong of the statute, indicating that the child was affected by substance exposure. The Court also found that the Department provided sufficient evidence to show that B.C.B.'s health or welfare was threatened by substance use, either directly or due to the mother's inability to care for the child properly. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and upheld the jury's finding that B.C.B. was dependent or neglected. View "People ex rel. B.C.B. v. A.B." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between a railroad company and La Plata County over land use changes made by the railroad at its Rockwood Station. The railroad made several modifications to accommodate increased passenger traffic, including enlarging a parking lot and adding portable toilets and tents. The County claimed these changes violated its land use code and demanded compliance or corrective action.The railroad initially sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction in La Plata County District Court, arguing that the County lacked jurisdiction over its operations. While this case was pending, the County petitioned the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for a declaratory ruling that the changes required compliance with the County's land use code. The PUC accepted the petition, and an administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the changes constituted "extensions, betterments, or additions" under the relevant statute, thus requiring compliance with the County's code. The PUC upheld the ALJ's decision, and the district court affirmed the PUC's ruling.The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed the case and addressed several issues raised by the railroad. The court concluded that the PUC had jurisdiction to interpret the relevant land use statute, the County had standing to petition the PUC, and the PUC did not violate the railroad's due process rights. The court also found that the PUC's determination that the changes constituted "extensions, betterments, or additions" was just and reasonable and supported by the evidence. Consequently, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment upholding the PUC's decision. View "Am. Heritage Ry.s v. Colo. Pub. Utils. Comm'n" on Justia Law