Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In 2008, Andy Luu Tran granted Citizens Bank a mortgage on his Massachusetts home. In 2022, the Bank foreclosed on the property, and Herbert Jacobs was the high bidder at the auction. The Bank recorded an affidavit of sale but the foreclosure deed lacked the required signature page. Tran filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition and an adversary complaint to avoid the transfer of his interest in the property due to the improperly recorded deed.The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment against Tran, holding that the only transfer at foreclosure was of Tran's equity of redemption, which was extinguished at the foreclosure auction. The court found that the properly recorded affidavit of sale provided constructive notice, making the transfer unavoidable. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts affirmed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Tran's equity of redemption was extinguished at the foreclosure auction when the memorandum of sale was executed. The court also held that the properly recorded affidavit of sale provided constructive notice of the foreclosure, making the transfer of Tran's equity of redemption unavoidable under Massachusetts law. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court. View "Tran v. Citizens Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

In 2016, Tucker Cianchette secured a multimillion-dollar judgment in Maine Superior Court against his father, step-mother, and two LLCs after they backed out of a 2015 agreement that would have given him sole control of a Ford dealership. Following this, in 2021, Eric and Peggy Cianchette, along with Cianchette Family, LLC, and Better Way Ford, LLC, filed a lawsuit alleging that Ford Motor Company violated state and federal laws during the failed 2015 negotiations and through false testimony by Ford employees in Tucker's 2016 suit.The 2021 lawsuit was initially filed in Maine Superior Court but was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Maine. The District Court dismissed all claims against Ford, leading the plaintiffs to appeal. The plaintiffs argued that Ford's actions during the 2015 negotiations and the 2016 lawsuit constituted violations of Maine's civil perjury statute, the Dealers Act, the federal Automobile Dealers' Day in Court Act, and also amounted to breach of contract and tortious interference with contract.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that Ford made any false representations or that any reliance on such representations was justified. The court also found that the plaintiffs' claims under the Dealers Act were barred by res judicata due to a prior ruling by the Maine Motor Vehicle Franchise Board. Additionally, the court concluded that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing did not apply to the breach of contract claims under Michigan law, as the SSA explicitly granted Ford the right to approve changes in ownership. View "Better Way Ford, LLC v. Ford Motor Company" on Justia Law

Two brothers, Roland and Robert, ran an automotive business together under Guieb Inc. Their relationship deteriorated when Robert made decisions that Roland disagreed with, including using their company for his own benefit and allegedly stealing the trade name and most profitable shop for his personal companies. Roland sued Robert, alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices, unfair methods of competition, and deceptive trade practices under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 480-2 and 481A-3. He also sought punitive damages for fraud, misrepresentation, nondisclosure, and breach of fiduciary duty.The Circuit Court of the First Circuit granted Robert’s motion for partial summary judgment (MPSJ) and dismissed Roland’s claims under count 12, finding no genuine issue of material fact. The court also granted Robert’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on punitive damages, preventing the jury from considering them. Additionally, the court ruled that brotherhood did not establish a fiduciary duty, granting Robert’s MPSJ on that issue as well.The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) reversed the circuit court on three issues. It held that Roland’s unfair and deceptive trade practices claim should have gone to the jury, as there was evidence that Robert represented Guieb Inc. and Guieb Group as the same entity. The ICA also held that the jury should have considered punitive damages, given the evidence of Robert’s actions that could justify such damages. Lastly, the ICA found that brotherhood created a kinship fiduciary duty, which should have been considered by the jury.The Supreme Court of Hawaii agreed with the ICA that the jury should have considered Roland’s claims under count 12 and punitive damages. However, it disagreed that kinship created a fiduciary duty, affirming the circuit court’s MPSJ on that issue. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Guieb v. Guieb" on Justia Law

Joel Aaron Burrell, a prisoner, filed a lawsuit against several correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Burrell sought to proceed in forma pauperis, which allows indigent prisoners to file lawsuits without prepaying filing fees. The district court denied his request, citing the three-strike rule under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which prevents prisoners from proceeding in forma pauperis if they have had three prior lawsuits dismissed for being frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. The district court identified three such dismissals in Burrell's case history and dismissed his current action when he did not pay the filing fee.Burrell appealed, arguing that two of the prior dismissals should not count as strikes. The first case was dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine, which prevents federal courts from interfering with ongoing state proceedings. The second case was dismissed after Burrell failed to amend his complaint following a court order that found his initial complaint failed to state a claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that a dismissal under Younger abstention does not count as a strike because it does not assess the merits of the complaint. Regarding the second case, the court determined that while a failure to amend following a finding of failure to state a claim can count as a strike, it should not be counted if the dismissal occurred after the current lawsuit was filed.The Fourth Circuit held that the district court erred in applying the three-strike rule to Burrell's case. Since Burrell had only one valid strike at the time he filed the current lawsuit, the district court's dismissal was vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Burrell v. Shirley" on Justia Law

Amanda Watts received two vaccines, Pneumovax 23 and Boostrix, at a CVS Pharmacy in 2017. She claimed that both vaccines were negligently administered in the same improper location on her arm, leading to a chronic pain condition. However, CVS is immune from suit for the administration of Boostrix under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Consequently, Watts's complaint focused solely on the alleged negligence in administering Pneumovax.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment to CVS, finding that Watts presented no evidence from which a jury could determine that her injury was caused by the Pneumovax vaccine rather than the Boostrix vaccine. The court also struck an errata sheet submitted by Watts's expert, Dr. Akhil Chhatre, which attempted to amend his deposition testimony to suggest that both vaccines contributed to Watts's injury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit agreed that Watts failed to provide evidence to establish that her injury was caused by the Pneumovax shot, as required to overcome CVS's immunity for the Boostrix shot. The court noted that both of Watts's experts could not definitively attribute her injury to the Pneumovax vaccine alone. The court also upheld the district court's decision to strike Dr. Chhatre's errata sheet, which materially altered his original testimony.The Fourth Circuit concluded that without evidence to separate the effects of the two vaccines, a jury could only speculate on the cause of Watts's injury. Therefore, Watts could not satisfy the causation element of her negligence claim, and the summary judgment in favor of CVS was affirmed. View "Watts v. Maryland CVS Pharmacy, LLC" on Justia Law

A married couple, with three young children, filed for divorce. The mother requested primary custody, pendente lite child support, and alimony, while the father requested primary custody and child support. A family magistrate found both parents capable of earning significant income and denied the mother's request for pendente lite child support and alimony, recommending shared custody and shared payment of the mortgage and utilities for the marital home.The Circuit Court for Howard County adopted the magistrate's recommendations and denied the mother's exceptions to the magistrate's report. The mother appealed, citing Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 12-303(3)(v), which allows appeals from interlocutory orders for the payment of money.The Appellate Court of Maryland dismissed the appeal, holding that an interlocutory order denying pendente lite child support and alimony is not appealable under CJ § 12-303(3)(v) because it does not direct the payment of money. The mother then petitioned the Supreme Court of Maryland for a writ of certiorari.The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the Appellate Court's judgment, holding that CJ § 12-303(3)(v) authorizes appeals only from interlocutory orders that direct the payment of money, not from orders denying such requests. The Court concluded that the legislative history and case law support this interpretation, emphasizing that the statute's plain language does not permit appeals from orders denying the payment of money. View "Adelakun v. Adelakun" on Justia Law

A group of current and former employees of Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. alleged that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regarding wages for tipped workers. They sought preliminary certification for a collective action to include all servers in states where Cracker Barrel attempts to take a tip credit over the last three years. Cracker Barrel objected, arguing that notice should not be sent to employees who are subject to arbitration agreements or to out-of-state employees with no ties to Arizona.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary certification and approved notice to the proposed group, including employees who might have entered into arbitration agreements and out-of-state employees. The court decided to reserve judgment on the arbitration issue until the second stage of proceedings and concluded that nationwide notice was permissible based on the participation of one Arizona-based plaintiff.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in following the two-step procedure for preliminary certification. It also held that where the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement are in dispute, the district court is not required to determine the arbitrability of absent employees' claims before authorizing notice. However, the Ninth Circuit joined other circuits in holding that the Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California applies to FLSA collective actions in federal court. This means that for specific personal jurisdiction, the district court must assess whether each opt-in plaintiff's claim is sufficiently connected to the defendant's activities in the forum state. The court vacated the district court's order authorizing nationwide notice and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "HARRINGTON V. CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC." on Justia Law

Monika McCallion, Brandan McCallion, and Old Bears, LLC (collectively, the McCallions) appealed a judgment affirming the Bar Harbor Board of Appeals' decision to uphold the issuance of a 2023 short-term rental registration to W.A.R.M. Management, LLC. The Town of Bar Harbor requires annual registration of short-term rental properties, classifying them as either VR-1 or VR-2. W.A.R.M. Management, LLC owns two VR-2 properties, one of which is central to this dispute. The property in question is in a district where VR-2s are generally prohibited unless they were registered before December 2, 2021. W.A.R.M. submitted renewal applications and fees for both properties in January 2023, but due to a malfunction in the Town's online portal, one application was lost, and the registration was not renewed by the May 31 deadline. The Town's code enforcement officer (CEO) later issued a registration for the property in October 2023 after determining that W.A.R.M. had timely submitted its renewal application.The McCallions filed an administrative appeal with the Bar Harbor Board of Appeals, arguing that the CEO could not renew the registration after the deadline. The Board upheld the CEO's actions after a de novo hearing. The McCallions then filed a Rule 80B complaint in the Superior Court, which affirmed the Board's decision without addressing the Town's mootness argument. While the case was pending, W.A.R.M. received a 2024 registration for the property, which the McCallions did not contest.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and determined that the appeal was moot because the 2023 registration had been superseded by the 2024 registration, which was not appealed. The court concluded that even if it ruled in favor of the McCallions regarding the 2023 registration, it would have no practical effect since the 2024 registration was final and not subject to review. The court dismissed the appeal as moot, noting that no exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied in this case. View "McCallion v. Town of Bar Harbor" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Kimberly-Clark Corporation, alleging that the company falsely advertised its bathroom wipes as flushable, leading consumers to pay a premium and causing plumbing damage. The parties reached a settlement where Kimberly-Clark agreed to pay up to $20 million in compensation to the class and up to $4 million in attorney’s fees. However, class members claimed less than $1 million. The district court approved the settlement under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and adequate. Objector Theodore H. Frank appealed, arguing that the settlement disproportionately benefited class counsel, who received most of the monetary recovery. Frank contended that the district court failed to properly assess the allocation of recovery between the class and class counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with Frank that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in its Rule 23(e) analysis. The appellate court clarified that Rule 23(e) requires courts to compare the proportion of total recovery allocated to the class with the proportion allocated to class counsel. The court vacated the district court’s order and judgment approving the settlement and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The appellate court did not reach a conclusion on whether the settlement was fair but emphasized the need for a proper proportionality analysis. View "Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark Corp." on Justia Law

Dr. John Doe, a federal public servant with a security clearance, was convicted of two felonies in Ohio in the early 1990s. He received a pardon from the Ohio governor in 2009, and his felony convictions were sealed by an Ohio court. In 2022, Dr. Doe applied for a position at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), but his application was denied due to a statutory bar against hiring individuals with felony convictions. Dr. Doe then filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this hiring prohibition and sought to proceed under a pseudonym to avoid public association with his sealed convictions.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied Dr. Doe's motion to proceed under a pseudonym. The court acknowledged Dr. Doe's privacy concerns and the lack of unfairness to the government but concluded that the privacy interest in felony convictions does not warrant pseudonymity. The court emphasized the importance of transparency in judicial proceedings, especially in cases involving constitutional challenges against the government.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the district court's decision. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling, agreeing that Dr. Doe's privacy interest in his sealed felony convictions was insufficient to overcome the presumption against pseudonymous litigation. The court highlighted the public's significant interest in open judicial proceedings, particularly when the case involves a constitutional challenge to a federal statute. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the relevant factors and denying Dr. Doe's motion to proceed under a pseudonym. View "Doe v. McKernan" on Justia Law