Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Pamela Whalen was injured when she tripped over a utility box in a community owned and maintained by Lennar Communities Nevada, LLC, and Greystone Nevada, LLC. Before the accident, Pamela had signed an amendment to a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) to buy a home from Lennar, which included an arbitration clause. The injury occurred during a tour of the community, not on the property she purchased. Following the accident, Pamela sued Lennar for negligence.After Pamela filed her complaint, Lennar responded with an answer and demanded a jury trial. Both parties engaged in extensive discovery over 17 months, including multiple disclosures, written discovery, and three medical examinations of Pamela at Lennar’s request. Lennar did not assert its right to arbitrate until after this lengthy discovery process. When Pamela declined to stipulate to arbitration, Lennar filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the PSA. The Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, denied Lennar’s motion, determining that the dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in interpreting the scope of the arbitration clause, as the PSA delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. However, the Supreme Court held that Lennar had waived its right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case for 17 months before seeking arbitration. The court found this conduct inconsistent with the right to arbitrate and prejudicial to Pamela, especially given the discovery obtained that might not have been available in arbitration. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration, albeit on the grounds of waiver rather than contract interpretation. View "LENNAR COMM. NEV., LLC VS. WHALEN" on Justia Law

Cuevas Machine Company entered into a subcontract with O’Neal Constructors for fabrication and machining work at a filtration plant owned by Calgon Carbon Corporation in Mississippi. Under the subcontract, Cuevas was to be paid after Calgon paid O’Neal. Despite nonpayment from O’Neal, Cuevas continued its work. In October 2023, Cuevas recorded two construction liens totaling over $1.2 million against Calgon’s property, but the lien documents did not explicitly state the last date labor, services, or materials were supplied—a statutory requirement. Instead, Cuevas attached invoices to the liens, which included dates, but it was unclear whether these dates satisfied the statutory requirement.After Cuevas filed suit to foreclose on the liens in Mississippi state court, Calgon removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi and moved to dismiss. The district court granted Calgon’s motion, dismissing Cuevas’s complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). The district court concluded, making an Erie guess, that the liens were unenforceable because they did not clearly specify the required “last date” in the manner demanded by Mississippi law, and found that the attached invoices did not sufficiently cure this defect.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. Finding Mississippi law ambiguous on whether attachments that do not plainly state the “last date” can satisfy the statutory requirement, the Fifth Circuit certified the following question to the Mississippi Supreme Court: whether attaching invoices that do not explicitly state the “last date labor, services or materials were supplied” satisfies the requirement under Miss. Code Ann. § 85-7-405(1)(b) that a lien “specify the date the claim was due.” The Fifth Circuit did not decide the merits, instead certifying the question for authoritative resolution. View "Cuevas Machine v. Calgon Carbon" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an individual residing overseas, alleged that his longstanding debit card account with the defendant bank was improperly deactivated on multiple occasions, including after a series of withdrawals he used to pay rent in Mauritius. He claimed that the bank’s customer service was difficult to navigate and that the deactivation caused him mental anguish and damages. He sought damages and injunctive relief, asserting the bank had a duty to restore his access and protect against fraud without jeopardizing customers.The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint in the Kent County Superior Court. The plaintiff, who was self-represented, filed a motion seeking permission to appear remotely by WebEx for the hearing on the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Superior Court docket indicated that his motion to appear remotely was not scheduled because he did not request a hearing date. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, identifying the docket entry regarding his unscheduled motion as the order appealed from. After this, the Superior Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the plaintiff’s appeal, which focused on the denial of his motion to appear remotely and broader challenges to the Superior Court’s in-person appearance requirements. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was procedurally improper because the plaintiff did not appeal from an appealable final judgment, order, or decree, but rather from a non-appealable docket entry. The Court therefore denied and dismissed the appeal, and the case may be remanded to the Superior Court. The Court also noted that the discretion to permit remote appearances lies with the trial justice under the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. View "LaPadula v. Citizens Financial Group, Inc." on Justia Law

An inmate at an Arkansas state prison injured his right pinky finger while playing basketball, resulting in a dislocation. He was treated initially by infirmary staff with a splint and pain medication, and an x-ray was ordered. The x-ray showed no fracture but confirmed the dislocation. After a week, a doctor and a nurse attempted to realign the finger but were unsuccessful, so they provided additional pain management and referred him to an orthopedic surgeon. The finger was reset by a specialist over a month after the original injury. The inmate followed the prison grievance process, complaining about pain, the delay in seeing a provider, and subsequent delays in receiving further care.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas reviewed the inmate’s claims. The court dismissed the claims related to delay in care for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as the inmate did not specifically name the doctor and nurse responsible for the alleged delay in his grievances. The district court granted summary judgment to the doctor and nurse on the remaining claim regarding their care on May 19, finding no deliberate indifference.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the inmate did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies against the doctor and nurse for claims of delayed care, since he failed to name them as required by prison policy. Further, the appellate court agreed with the district court that the care provided on May 19 did not constitute deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that the medical staff acted with deliberate indifference, and thus affirmed the district court’s dismissal and grant of summary judgment. View "Nuuh Na'im v. Beck" on Justia Law

A nursing student was required to complete clinical rotations at local hospitals as part of her coursework in 2017. She alleged that her supervisor, the director of the nursing program, subjected her to severe sexual harassment and retaliated against her when she rejected his advances by giving her a failing grade and refusing to discuss it. After the student reported these incidents, the district placed the supervisor on administrative leave and initiated an independent investigation. The investigation confirmed inappropriate conduct by the supervisor, who did not return to his position. The student later withdrew from the program and completed her degree out of state. Through counsel, she notified the district of her intent to pursue claims and sought damages.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County granted summary judgment for the community college district, holding that the student lacked standing under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), failed to comply with the Government Claims Act for her non-FEHA claims, and that the district was not deliberately indifferent under the Education Code. The court also excluded the student’s attorney’s declaration due to a technical omission, and entered judgment for the district on all claims.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reversed the judgment. The court found the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow the attorney’s declaration to be corrected, which was a curable procedural defect. The appellate court held that a postsecondary student serving in a clinical capacity qualifies as an “unpaid intern” under FEHA, conferring standing. The court further found the student’s notice to the district satisfied the Government Claims Act requirements, and concluded that triable issues existed regarding whether the district acted with deliberate indifference. The court affirmed summary adjudication for the district only on the Civil Code cause of action, but otherwise denied summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Walton v. Victor Valley Community College District" on Justia Law

Two former tenants sued the owner and manager of a residential apartment complex, alleging that they were charged unlawful rental application fees and excessive lock change fees, in violation of the Massachusetts security deposit statute and consumer protection laws. They sought to represent a statewide class of similarly situated tenants. After contentious discovery, the Superior Court sanctioned the defendants, precluding them from contesting certain liability facts. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the security deposit claims but denied summary judgment on the consumer protection claims. Before trial, the parties reached a proposed class action settlement that established a fund for class members, with unclaimed funds to be distributed partly to charities and partly returned to the defendants.The Superior Court, after scrutiny and required revisions, approved the settlement. The court capped the amount of unclaimed funds that could revert to the defendants and required that a portion go to designated charities. However, the Massachusetts IOLTA Committee, a nonparty potentially entitled to notice under Mass. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(3), was not notified prior to settlement approval. After final approval and claims processing, the committee received notice for the first time and objected to the final distribution of unclaimed funds, arguing that the lack of timely notice violated the rule and that final judgment should be set aside. The motion judge agreed there was a violation but declined to vacate the settlement, finding no prejudice.On direct appellate review, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the IOLTA Committee had standing to appeal the denial of its procedural right to notice and an opportunity to be heard on the disposition of residual funds, but lacked standing to challenge the overall fairness or structure of the settlement. Assuming a violation of the rule occurred, the Court found no prejudice because the committee ultimately received the opportunity to be heard before judgment entered. The judgment was affirmed. View "Ortins v. Lincoln Property Company" on Justia Law

A county board created a port authority in 2003 to encourage economic development, administering a business park on contaminated land formerly operated by a lumber company. In 2022, the port authority entered into agreements with a private company to clean up and potentially develop the property, culminating in the sale of 105 acres for $1.6 million, with a credit for cleanup costs. The plaintiff alleged that between May 2022 and April 2025, the port authority failed to provide adequate public notice of its meetings or opportunities for public participation regarding the land transactions, in violation of Montana’s open meeting and right to participate laws.The Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, reviewed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which sought to halt any actions pursuant to the port authority’s decisions during the contested period and to void the land sale and related contracts. The District Court denied the injunction, reasoning that the relief sought would not merely enforce open meeting laws but would invalidate completed transactions and disrupt the property’s new ownership and development. The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, particularly given the significant passage of time and changes to the property. The court did not resolve contested factual issues about notice or participation, nor did it make any final rulings on the underlying claims.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court manifestly abused its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the District Court did not abuse its discretion because the plaintiff failed to establish all required elements for preliminary injunctive relief. The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower court had not decided the merits of the open meeting law claims and left those questions for future proceedings. View "Torgison v. Lincoln County" on Justia Law

The case concerns a legal dispute between two individuals after one party filed a complaint alleging various claims such as breach of contract and misrepresentation. The defendant, representing himself, responded with a cross-complaint. The central procedural issue arose when the trial court granted an anti-SLAPP motion in favor of the plaintiff, dismissed the cross-complaint with prejudice, and awarded attorney’s fees to the plaintiff. The defendant challenged this outcome, asserting that procedural irregularities rendered the orders void, including claims about the improper filing and service of the anti-SLAPP order, as well as arguments about judicial disqualification and standing.After the trial court’s initial rulings, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, previously reviewed the matter in an earlier appeal and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the cross-complaint and the award of attorney’s fees. The court also determined that the plaintiff was entitled to additional attorney’s fees incurred on appeal, with the amount to be set on remand. On remand, the trial court awarded further fees to the plaintiff. The defendant again appealed, raising many of the same arguments previously rejected, as well as new procedural objections.In this second appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, found all of the defendant’s arguments baseless and affirmed the attorney’s fee award. The court held that the defendant’s attempt to relitigate final decisions was frivolous and imposed sanctions against him for pursuing a meritless appeal. The court further ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees for the current appeal and imposed a $10,000 sanction payable to the clerk of the court, remanding the case for the trial court to determine the precise amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded. View "Zand v. Sukumar" on Justia Law

A U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent was denied boarding an international flight in 2019 and subsequently learned, after following the Department of Homeland Security’s redress process, that he was listed on the federal government’s No Fly List. He then sought to challenge his inclusion both on the No Fly List and the broader Terrorist Watchlist, which contains the names of individuals reasonably suspected of terrorism. Placement on the No Fly List is dependent on inclusion in the Terrorist Watchlist. The individual alleged ongoing travel and immigration-related harms due to his watchlist designations.He filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, raising constitutional and statutory claims and seeking removal from both lists. The district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the No Fly List claims due to the statutory requirement that such challenges proceed in the circuit court under 49 U.S.C. § 46110, and transferred those claims accordingly. The district court retained the Terrorist Watchlist claims under general federal question jurisdiction. After further briefing, the district court dismissed the remaining Terrorist Watchlist claims for lack of Article III standing, finding it could not redress the alleged injuries because removing the plaintiff from the Terrorist Watchlist would necessarily set aside the TSA Administrator’s order keeping him on the No Fly List—an action reserved for the circuit court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed. The court held that while the plaintiff suffered concrete injuries from his inclusion on the Terrorist Watchlist, the district court lacked authority to redress those injuries because any effective remedy would encroach on the circuit court’s exclusive jurisdiction to review and set aside TSA No Fly List orders under § 46110. Thus, the district court properly dismissed the case for lack of standing. View "Khalid v. Blanche" on Justia Law

The case concerns an individual who was injured after tripping over the base of a removed bus stop sign on a public sidewalk in Manitou Springs, Colorado, on August 26, 2021. The injured party promptly notified Manitou Springs of her injury as required by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA), which mandates notice to the liable public entity within 182 days of discovering the injury. Manitou Springs did not disclose its lack of responsibility for the sidewalk until April 2023, well after the statutory period had expired, when it told the claimant that Colorado Springs was responsible under an intergovernmental agreement. The claimant then notified Colorado Springs forty days later, but this notice was well outside the 182-day window.After the claimant brought suit against both cities for premises liability and negligence, Colorado Springs moved to dismiss, arguing that the notice was untimely under the CGIA and that equitable defenses were unavailable. The District Court denied this motion, holding that the notice period should have started when the claimant learned of Colorado Springs’ potential liability, not on the date of injury. The District Court reasoned that the claimant could not have known about the intergovernmental agreement without disclosure from Manitou Springs and thus had acted diligently.The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the CGIA’s 182-day notice period is jurisdictional, cannot be tolled or waived, and begins when the injury is discovered, regardless of knowledge of the liable public entity. The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed this judgment, holding that strict compliance with the notice provision was required and that the notice period began on the date of injury. Because the claimant’s notice to Colorado Springs was untimely, dismissal was required. View "Mostellar v. City of Colo. Springs" on Justia Law