Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

After failing to pay property taxes on her home in Maricopa County, Arizona, the plaintiff’s tax liens were sold to a private entity, which later foreclosed on the property. The plaintiff did not respond to the foreclosure action, resulting in a default judgment that extinguished her rights to the property. The property was then deeded to the private purchaser, who transferred it to another private party. The plaintiff subsequently challenged the foreclosure, the retention of surplus equity from the sale, and the constitutionality of the Arizona statute that allowed private parties to enforce tax liens without providing just compensation.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, finding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the plaintiff’s injuries stemmed from the state court’s foreclosure judgment, which had already extinguished her property rights, and thus her federal claims amounted to an impermissible appeal of a state court decision. The court also dismissed her state law claims, except for one over which it declined supplemental jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Ninth Circuit held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the plaintiff’s claims that directly attacked the state court foreclosure judgment, such as those alleging the foreclosure was an unconstitutional taking or excessive fine. However, the court held that claims challenging the defendants’ post-judgment retention of surplus equity were not barred, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, which recognized a property owner’s right to excess equity after a tax foreclosure. The court also found that the plaintiff’s facial challenge to the statute was not barred by Rooker-Feldman but was moot due to legislative amendments. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the surviving claims. View "SEARLE V. ALLEN" on Justia Law

A family leased a home within military housing at the Naval Amphibious Base Coronado in California. Shortly after moving in, they experienced persistent water intrusion and mold contamination, which they alleged damaged their property and affected their health. The family reported these issues to the property manager and the public-private entity responsible for the housing, but claimed that remediation efforts were inadequate and that their concerns were dismissed. After further testing confirmed hazardous mold, the family vacated the property and brought state law claims, including negligence and breach of contract, against the property manager, the public-private housing entity, and a mold remediation company.The defendants removed the case from California state court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, asserting federal enclave, federal officer, and federal agency jurisdiction. The district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on derivative sovereign immunity and, after further proceedings, found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction on all asserted grounds. Specifically, the court determined there was no evidence that the United States had accepted exclusive jurisdiction over the property, that the defendants failed to show a causal nexus between their actions and federal direction, and that the public-private entity was not a federal agency. The district court remanded the case to state court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the remand order under an exception allowing appellate review when federal officer removal is asserted. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court correctly found no federal enclave jurisdiction because there was no evidence of federal acceptance of exclusive jurisdiction over the property. The court also held that the defendants did not meet the requirements for federal officer or agency jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s remand to state court. View "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC" on Justia Law

A teacher at a public charter school in Utah was terminated after a series of events involving a student and the student's parent. The teacher, a former Air Force veteran, reprimanded the student for disruptive behavior, leading the student to quit the team and report the incident to his father. The parent, dissatisfied with the teacher's conduct, began raising concerns about the teacher's alleged inappropriate behavior, including claims of physical and verbal abuse, to school administrators and at a school board meeting. The parent also communicated these concerns to the school superintendent and, according to the teacher, made a report to local police. Investigations by both the police and the Division of Child and Family Services found no evidence of abuse, and the teacher was ultimately terminated without a stated reason.The teacher filed suit in the Third District Court, Salt Lake County, alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), abuse of process, and tortious interference with economic relations. The parent moved for early dismissal under Utah’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), arguing the statute protected his speech and actions. The district court denied the motion, finding UPEPA inapplicable and concluding that the teacher had stated prima facie cases for all claims.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah held that the district court erred in finding UPEPA did not apply, as the parent’s statements concerned a matter of public concern. The Supreme Court also found that the teacher failed to state prima facie cases for IIED and abuse of process, requiring dismissal of those claims. The court vacated the denial of the special motion as to defamation and tortious interference, remanding for further consideration of whether the teacher could establish a prima facie case, particularly regarding privilege. The court ordered costs and fees related to the motion be awarded as provided by UPEPA. View "Mackey v. Krause" on Justia Law

In 2021, a plaintiff filed a complaint against a public school district, alleging that she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by a teacher while attending middle and high school. The complaint asserted that the teacher’s abusive conduct was widely known within the school and that the district either knew or should have known about the abuse but failed to act, allowing the teacher to remain employed. The plaintiff brought claims for negligence and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, relying on statutory provisions that exempt certain childhood sexual assault claims from the usual requirement to present a claim to the public entity before filing suit.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the case after the school district moved for judgment on the pleadings. The district argued that the plaintiff’s claims were only possible due to Assembly Bill 218 (AB 218), which retroactively eliminated the claims presentation requirement for childhood sexual assault claims against public entities. The district contended that AB 218 violated the gift clause of the California Constitution by imposing liability for past acts where no enforceable claim previously existed. The trial court agreed, finding that AB 218 retroactively created liability and constituted an unconstitutional gift of public funds, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the trial court’s decision de novo. The appellate court held that AB 218 does not violate the gift clause because it did not create new substantive liability; rather, it removed a procedural barrier to enforcing pre-existing liability for negligence and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with directions to deny the school district’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. View "O.B. v. L.A. Unified School Dist." on Justia Law

Two business compliance companies entered into a partnership to develop a software product, with one company providing “white-label” services to the other. The partnership was formalized in a written agreement, but disputes arose over performance, payment for out-of-scope work, and the functionality of the software integration. As the relationship deteriorated, the company that had sought the services began developing its own infrastructure, ultimately terminating the partnership and launching a competing product. The service provider alleged that its trade secrets and proprietary information were misappropriated in the process.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania presided over a jury trial in which the service provider brought claims for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation under both state and federal law, and unfair competition. The jury found in favor of the service provider, awarding compensatory and punitive damages across the claims. The jury specifically found that six of eight alleged trade secrets were misappropriated. The defendant company filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and remittitur, arguing insufficient evidence, improper expert testimony, and duplicative damages. The District Court denied these motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s rulings. The Third Circuit held that the defendant had forfeited its argument regarding the protectability of the trade secrets by not raising it with sufficient specificity at trial, and thus assumed protectability for purposes of appeal. The court found sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding of misappropriation by use, and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The court also found no reversible error in the admission of expert testimony. However, the Third Circuit determined that the damages awarded for trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition were duplicative, and conditionally remanded for remittitur of $11,068,044, allowing the plaintiff to accept the reduced award or seek a new trial on damages. View "Harbor Business Compliance Corp v. Firstbase IO Inc" on Justia Law

Dr. Padma Rao brought a defamation suit against JP Morgan Chase Bank and its employee, Keifer Krause, after Krause informed the administrator of her late mother’s estate that Rao, acting under a power of attorney, had designated herself as the payable on death (POD) beneficiary of her mother’s accounts. This statement led the estate administrator to accuse Rao of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty in probate court. The dispute centered on whether Rao had improperly used her authority to benefit herself, which would be illegal under Illinois law.The case was initially filed in Illinois state court, but Chase removed it to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before any defendant was served, invoking “snap removal.” The district court dismissed all claims except for defamation per se. On summary judgment, the court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that Krause’s statements were not defamatory, could be innocently construed, and were protected by qualified privilege. Rao appealed both the dismissal of her consumer fraud claim and the grant of summary judgment on her defamation claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit first addressed jurisdiction, dismissing Krause as a party to preserve diversity jurisdiction. The court affirmed the dismissal of Rao’s consumer fraud claim, finding she had not alleged unauthorized disclosure of personal information. However, it reversed the summary judgment on the defamation per se claim against Chase, holding that Krause’s statements could not be innocently construed and that a qualified privilege did not apply, given evidence of possible recklessness. The case was remanded for a jury to determine whether the statements were understood as defamatory. View "Padma Rao v J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

An employee at a meatpacking plant in Texas died after contracting COVID-19, allegedly from a coworker who continued working after testing positive. The decedent’s family sued the plant manager, the safety manager, and the coworker in Texas state court, claiming negligence and gross negligence due to unsafe working conditions and inadequate precautions against COVID-19. The complaint alleged that the employer, Tyson Foods, failed to protect employees, and that the managers were responsible for workplace safety. The coworker was accused of coming to work and failing to take precautions after testing positive.The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, arguing that the Texas-based managers were improperly joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. The district court agreed, dismissed the claims against the managers with prejudice, and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to remand. Tyson Foods was later added as a defendant. The district court then dismissed the claims against Tyson on the grounds that they were preempted by the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), and dismissed the claims against the coworker for failure to state a claim, finding no individual duty to prevent the spread of disease under Texas law. The court denied leave to amend the complaint as futile and entered final judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to remand and the dismissal of the coworker, holding that the managers were improperly joined and that Texas law does not impose an individual duty on coworkers to prevent the spread of disease. However, the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the claims against Tyson, holding that the PPIA does not preempt state law negligence claims based on workplace safety unrelated to food adulteration. The court vacated the denial of leave to amend and remanded for further proceedings. View "Williams v. Wingrove" on Justia Law

A sitting judge of the San Diego County Superior Court applied to be appointed as the San Diego County Public Defender in 2023. The County informed him that he was ineligible for the position, citing Government Code section 27701, which requires that a person must have been a practicing attorney in all courts of the State for at least the year preceding the date of election or appointment. The judge, acting in his individual capacity, filed a declaratory relief action seeking a judicial determination that the statute only required one year of prior practice at any time before appointment, not necessarily the year immediately preceding.The case was initially filed in the San Diego County Superior Court but was reassigned to the Orange County Superior Court due to the nature of the parties. The parties agreed to resolve the statutory interpretation issue through a motion. The plaintiff argued that his interpretation avoided absurd results and constitutional issues, while the County maintained that the statute’s plain language required the one year of practice to be immediately before appointment. The Orange County Superior Court ruled in favor of the County, finding the statutory language unambiguous and declining to rewrite the statute.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the statutory interpretation de novo. The appellate court held that the language of section 27701 is unambiguous: eligibility for the office of public defender requires that the candidate has been a practicing attorney in all courts of the State for at least the one year immediately preceding election or appointment. The court rejected arguments regarding ambiguity, absurdity, and constitutional avoidance, finding no basis to depart from the statute’s plain meaning. The judgment of the Orange County Superior Court was affirmed. View "Washington v. County of San Diego" on Justia Law

Several groups of plaintiffs sought to access approximately $3.5 billion in assets held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the name of Da Afghanistan Bank (DAB), the central bank of Afghanistan. The first group, the Pre-Judgment Plaintiffs, sought to confirm a pre-judgment attachment order on these funds to secure potential future judgments against the Taliban for its alleged role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa. The second group, the Judgment Plaintiffs, who already held judgments against the Taliban for its role in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, sought turnover of the same funds to satisfy their judgments. The assets in question were blocked by the U.S. government after the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan in August 2021, but the United States has not recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Valerie E. Caproni denied the Pre-Judgment Plaintiffs’ motion to confirm the attachment, finding that DAB’s funds were immune from attachment under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Judge George B. Daniels denied the Judgment Plaintiffs’ turnover motions, concluding that the FSIA and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA) did not permit turnover of the funds, and that DAB was not an agency or instrumentality of the Taliban for TRIA purposes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed both district court orders. The court held that DAB, as the central bank of Afghanistan, is an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state recognized by the Executive Branch, and thus its assets are immune from attachment and execution under the FSIA. The court further held that while the TRIA abrogates FSIA immunity and provides an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction, DAB was not an agency or instrumentality of the Taliban at the time the assets were blocked. Therefore, the TRIA did not apply, and the plaintiffs could not access the funds. View "Havlish v. Taliban" on Justia Law

Ripple Analytics Inc. operated a software platform for human resources functions and originally owned the federal trademark for the word “RIPPLE®” in connection with its software. In April 2018, Ripple assigned all rights, title, and interest in its intellectual property, including the trademark, to its Chairman and CEO, Noah Pusey. Meanwhile, People Center, Inc. began using the name “RIPPLING” for similar software, though it abandoned its own trademark registration effort. Ripple later sued People Center for trademark infringement and unfair competition, claiming ownership of the RIPPLE® mark.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York reviewed the case. During discovery, Ripple produced the assignment agreement showing that Pusey, not Ripple, owned the trademark. People Center moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17, arguing Ripple was not the real party in interest. The district court dismissed Ripple’s trademark infringement claim with prejudice, dismissed its unfair competition claims without prejudice for lack of standing, and denied Ripple’s motion to amend its complaint, finding the proposed amendment futile because it did not resolve the standing issue.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Ripple was not the real party in interest for the trademark infringement claim, as ownership had been assigned to Pusey, who failed to ratify or join the action. The court also held that Ripple lacked standing to pursue unfair competition claims under federal and state law, as it no longer had a commercial interest in the trademark. The denial of Ripple’s motion to amend was upheld because the amendment would not cure the standing defect. The court further found that the district court’s interlocutory order allowing People Center to amend its answer was not properly before it on appeal. View "Ripple Analytics Inc. v. People Center, Inc." on Justia Law