Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Several individuals and two organizations challenged a Missouri law enacted in 2022, House Bill No. 1878 (HB 1878), which amended the state’s voting requirements by mandating that voters present specific forms of photo identification or cast a provisional ballot under certain conditions. The organizations—the Missouri State Conference of the NAACP and the League of Women Voters of Missouri—along with the individuals, claimed that these provisions unconstitutionally burdened the right to vote and violated equal protection guarantees.Their petition for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed in the Circuit Court of Cole County. After a bench trial, the circuit court found that none of the individual plaintiffs had shown an actual or threatened injury, as each had either successfully voted since the law’s enactment or their alleged difficulties were speculative. The court also determined that the organizations had not established standing, either through a diversion of resources or by identifying any specific member adversely affected by the law. Despite these findings, the circuit court proceeded to rule on the merits, concluding the law was constitutional.The Supreme Court of Missouri, which has exclusive jurisdiction in cases involving the validity of state statutes, reviewed the matter. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s determination that the appellants lacked standing—meaning none of the plaintiffs demonstrated a concrete, personal stake in the outcome. The Supreme Court held that, because there was no justiciable controversy before the court, the circuit court erred by reaching and deciding the merits of the constitutional claims. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed that portion of the judgment addressing the merits of the constitutional challenge. The case was thus resolved solely on the issue of standing. View "Missouri State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People vs. State" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, who were long-time friends of the defendants, invested significant sums in a biopharmaceutical company controlled by the defendants. The defendants did not disclose that the company was in serious financial distress, under a substantial obligation to a lender, and prohibited from incurring additional debt. The investment was structured through promissory notes, which included false warranties regarding the company’s financial status and claimed the formation of a new entity that never materialized. Instead of funding a new venture, the defendants used the investment to pay off existing company debt. Less than two years later, the company declared bankruptcy, making the notes essentially worthless.The plaintiffs brought claims under federal and Massachusetts securities laws, the Massachusetts consumer protection statute, and for common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The defendants moved to dismiss the action, relying on a forum selection clause in the promissory notes requiring litigation in Delaware courts. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice, concluding that the clause applied to the plaintiffs’ claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The plaintiffs argued that their claims did not “arise out of” the notes and that the forum selection clause was unenforceable as contrary to Massachusetts public policy. The First Circuit rejected both arguments, holding that the claims arose from the notes and that the plaintiffs did not meet the heavy burden required to invalidate the clause on public policy grounds. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal without prejudice, leaving the plaintiffs free to pursue their claims in the contractually designated Delaware courts. View "Manzo v. Wohlstadter" on Justia Law

Several married couples, with one spouse in each couple serving on active military duty, purchased educational materials from a business operating on military bases. The seller, George LeMay, through his company, brought lawsuits against these couples after they stopped payment, ultimately securing state-court judgments against each couple. Some judgments were later overturned, but LeMay sought to enforce the remaining judgments in Maryland using its Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. The judgments were domesticated by Maryland state-court clerks without the procedural protections required by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), such as affidavits regarding military status or appointment of counsel. The clerks also issued writs of garnishment, leading to the plaintiffs’ bank accounts being frozen. Plaintiffs eventually succeeded in vacating the judgments, but not before suffering financial harm.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against LeMay (later dismissed after settlement), the Governor of Maryland, and the Justices of the Supreme Court of Maryland, all in their official capacities. The district court found that the act of domesticating a judgment did not trigger the SCRA’s protections, but that issuing writs of garnishment did. It ruled that plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief but allowed their damages claims against the Justices to proceed, reasoning their supervisory role was sufficiently linked to the injuries. However, the district court ultimately granted summary judgment for the defendants, relying on legislative immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment, holding that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because their injuries were not fairly traceable to acts or omissions by the Governor or the Justices. The court concluded the plaintiffs failed to show any defendant’s action caused the injuries, and it remanded with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Rouse v. Fader" on Justia Law

A California-based company that produces lab-grown chicken sought to distribute and sell its product in Florida. After the company received federal approval from the USDA and FDA to market its lab-grown chicken, Florida enacted SB 1084, a law banning the manufacture, sale, and distribution of all lab-grown meat within the state. The company had previously held tasting events and developed business relationships in Florida but had no plans to manufacture its product there.Following the enactment of SB 1084, the company filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida against state officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The company argued that the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) preempted Florida’s ban, claiming the state’s law imposed “additional or different” ingredient or facilities requirements in violation of the PPIA. The district court denied the company’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding the company unlikely to succeed on its preemption claims because SB 1084 did not regulate the company’s ingredients, premises, facilities, or operations. The court also addressed standing and procedural questions, ultimately dismissing the preemption claims after the company amended its complaint.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether the filing of an amended complaint or the district court’s dismissal order rendered the appeal moot and whether the company could challenge the Florida law as preempted. The Eleventh Circuit held the appeal was not moot and that the company could bring a preemption action in equity. However, the court concluded the company was unlikely to succeed on the merits. The court held that Florida’s ban did not impose ingredient or facilities requirements preempted by the PPIA, as it simply banned the product’s sale and manufacture. Therefore, the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Upside Foods Inc v. Commissioner, Florida Department of Agriculture" on Justia Law

Two lender plaintiffs provided a large loan to several special purpose entities (“Borrowers”) under a Loan and Security Agreement, which secured the loan with the Borrowers’ assets. The ultimate parent companies of the Borrowers (“Guarantors”) guaranteed repayment of the loan but did not pledge any of their own assets as collateral. After the lenders received information suggesting the Borrowers’ collateral was insufficient or encumbered, they accelerated the loan and demanded immediate payment of over $609 million. When neither the Borrowers nor the Guarantors could pay, the lenders filed suit for breach of contract and requested a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to freeze the assets of both the Borrowers and the Guarantors, expressing concern that these assets would be dissipated before a judgment could be enforced.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the injunction, including against the Guarantors’ assets. The Guarantors and related parties argued that, under Grupo Mexicano De Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., the District Court lacked authority to freeze their assets because the plaintiffs had no lien or equitable interest in them. The District Court found Grupo Mexicano distinguishable and declined to modify the injunction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the lenders did not have a lien or equitable interest in the Guarantors’ assets, as their claim was for contract damages and not for relief giving rise to an equitable interest in specific property. The court concluded that Grupo Mexicano precluded the freezing of the Guarantors’ assets under these circumstances. The Second Circuit vacated the portion of the District Court’s preliminary injunction restraining the Guarantors’ assets and remanded for further proceedings. The court made no ruling regarding the Borrowers’ assets, as that part of the injunction was not challenged. View "Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP v. Advantage Capital Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

A woman filed for a domestic violence protective order (DVPO) against her estranged husband, alleging incidents of sexual abuse, physical injury, and emotional mistreatment in the months before her complaint. She submitted a written statement detailing these allegations, which accompanied her unverified complaint. The parties had separated prior to the incidents described. An ex parte DVPO was initially granted, and after continuances, a hearing was held where both parties testified. The woman expanded upon her written allegations during her testimony, describing specific incidents and the emotional impact of her husband’s conduct. The husband denied any abuse or injury. The trial court reviewed the written statement, marking out portions it found unsupported, and entered a one-year DVPO, concluding that acts of domestic violence had occurred and that the woman was in danger of serious and immediate injury.After the DVPO was issued, the husband filed a motion under Rule 60 to set it aside, which was denied by the District Court, Durham County. He appealed, arguing that the trial court’s findings were insufficient, as they incorporated the wife’s written statement rather than independently setting out findings. The North Carolina Court of Appeals, in a divided decision, affirmed the trial court’s order, holding that competent evidence supported the findings and that the incorporation-by-reference method was permissible given the trial court’s credibility assessment and review of testimony. The dissent argued that the trial court failed to make specific findings as required by Rule 52 and would have vacated the DVPO.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the appeal. It held that the trial court’s method of incorporating the written statement—after hearing testimony and marking up the statement—complied with Rule 52. The trial court’s findings were sufficient in form, and competent evidence supported the issuance of the DVPO. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was affirmed. View "Jay v. Jay" on Justia Law

Several individuals died in a 2015 small aircraft accident in Georgia, including the pilot and three passengers. The plaintiffs, representing the victims and their estates, brought claims in 2017 against Avco Corporation and its division, Lycoming Engines, which manufactured the aircraft’s engine, as well as against companies that performed maintenance on the engine. The claims included strict liability, negligence, fraud, breach of warranties, and other theories. Over time, all defendants except Avco were voluntarily dismissed from the suit.The Superior Court in Buncombe County was assigned the case as exceptional. In 2022, the court granted Avco summary judgment on all claims except negligent failure to warn, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Avco had misrepresented or withheld information from the Federal Aviation Administration, which could trigger an exception to the statute of repose under the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA). Avco moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied in 2024, reaffirming that the question of whether Avco knowingly concealed required information should go to the jury.Avco appealed this interlocutory order to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, presumably for lack of appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory order. Avco then sought review in the Supreme Court of North Carolina.The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal. The Supreme Court clarified that an interlocutory order denying a statute of repose defense, such as GARA, affects a substantial right because it grants immunity from suit—not merely from liability—and thus is immediately appealable. The Court overruled contrary Court of Appeals precedent and reversed and remanded for the Court of Appeals to address the merits of Avco’s claim to statutory immunity. View "Byrd v. Avco Corp" on Justia Law

Three nonprofit organizations filed a nationwide class action against the United States, alleging that the federal judiciary overcharged the public for access to court records through the PACER system. They claimed the government used PACER fees not only to fund the system itself but also for unrelated expenses, contrary to the statutory limits set by the E-Government Act. The plaintiffs sought refunds for allegedly excessive fees collected between 2010 and 2018.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia oversaw extensive litigation, including class certification and an interlocutory appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit previously affirmed that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act and that the government had used PACER fees for unauthorized expenses. After remand, the parties reached a settlement totaling $125 million. The district court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also approved attorneys’ fees, administrative costs, and incentive awards to the class representatives. An objector, Eric Isaacson, challenged the district court’s jurisdiction, the fairness of the settlement, the attorneys’ fees, and the incentive awards.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act because each PACER transaction constituted a separate claim, none exceeding the $10,000 jurisdictional limit. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in approving the class settlement, the attorneys’ fees, or the incentive awards. The court also held that incentive awards are not categorically prohibited and are permissible if reasonable, joining the majority of federal circuits on this issue. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "NVLSP v. US " on Justia Law

A certified nursing assistant employed by a home health provider sustained injuries to her right shoulder and lower back during the course of her employment. She received medical treatment from several providers and was paid mileage reimbursements for traveling between patient homes. Following her injuries, the employer’s insurance carrier denied further payment of temporary disability and medical benefits, including an outstanding medical bill, and ultimately terminated her employment. The worker secured new employment at a higher wage and subsequently filed for workers’ compensation benefits, claiming entitlement to disability benefits and payment of the disputed medical bill. The employer denied liability.The Administrative Law Judge found that the worker had a compensable lower back injury with a 12% impairment rating, entitling her to temporary total and permanent partial disability benefits, but excluded mileage reimbursements from her average weekly wage and denied payment for the outstanding medical bill based on the provider’s failure to submit it within the statutory 45-day deadline. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the ALJ’s findings. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the exclusion of mileage reimbursements and dismissed the issue of the unpaid medical bill as moot after the employer voluntarily paid it during the appeal. The Court of Appeals also rejected a motion for leave to file an amicus brief, deeming it unauthorized.The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the exclusion of mileage reimbursements from the wage calculation, holding such payments were reimbursements for actual expenses and not “wages.” The Court reversed the dismissal of the medical bill claim as moot, applying the “voluntary cessation” exception, and held that denial of compensability constitutes reasonable grounds to excuse noncompliance with the 45-day rule for submitting medical bills. The Court also found the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting the amicus motion. The decision was affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "HARRIS V. MERCY HOME HEALTH" on Justia Law

The plaintiff filed a putative class action against the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, challenging the Massachusetts Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He alleged that the Act’s provisions regarding payment of interest on unclaimed property resulted in an uncompensated taking of his private property for public use. The plaintiff’s complaint included evidence that the state held property in his name, but did not explain his connection to the listed address or further describe the property. He had not filed a claim to recover the property through the statutory process.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief since he did not demonstrate any future harm, and that the Commonwealth had not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. The district court also concluded that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the Takings Clause, reasoning in part that the statute provides a mechanism for reclaiming the property in full and that any taking resulted from the plaintiff’s own neglect. The district court did not address the ripeness argument raised by the Treasurer.Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that if the plaintiff’s challenge was to the statutory interest rate, his claim was not ripe, as he had not yet made a claim for the property or been denied interest. Alternatively, if the claim was that a taking had already occurred when the state took possession, he lacked standing to seek prospective relief because any injury was in the past and not ongoing. The court thus affirmed the dismissal for lack of Article III jurisdiction. View "Narrigan v. Goldberg" on Justia Law