Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A woman who had resided at an apartment complex in 2021 was injured when a bullet, fired from outside her apartment, struck her. She filed a pro se complaint with the Montgomery Circuit Court before the expiration of the statute of limitations, seeking to hold the apartment management responsible for her injuries on the basis that tenants were supposed to have 24-hour security due to increasing crime. The complaint, in the form of a letter, did not explicitly name a defendant or assert specific legal claims, but accompanying documents identified Hubbard Properties as the defendant and provided an address for service. However, she did not include summonses or provide instructions regarding service of process.No action was taken in the case until a status conference was held nearly two years later. Several months after that, and after the limitations period had expired, the plaintiff amended her complaint with the assistance of counsel, formally naming both Stonebridge and Hubbard Properties as defendants and asserting claims of negligence, wantonness, and failure to provide safe premises. At that time, she also included summonses and requested service by certified mail, and both defendants were served after the limitations period expired. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations because the plaintiff had not made a bona fide attempt to have the original complaint immediately served. The Montgomery Circuit Court denied the motions to dismiss without explanation.The Supreme Court of Alabama granted the defendants' petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that, although the complaint was filed before the statute of limitations expired, the plaintiff did not have the bona fide intent to have it immediately served, as objectively required for timely commencement of an action under Alabama law. Because of this, and because service occurred after the limitations period, the court directed the circuit court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. View "Ex parte Stonebridge, LLC" on Justia Law

Two sisters, aged twelve and nine, were sexually abused by their tutor during sessions at public libraries owned by two Alabama municipalities in 2017. The abuse was witnessed by library employees who allegedly failed to intervene or report the misconduct. The sisters disclosed the abuse to their mother later that year, prompting a police report. In 2023, the tutor was convicted of sexual abuse. In 2024, the sisters and their mother sued the municipalities, asserting negligence in failing to respond to the abuse.The initial complaint named nonprofit corporations associated with the libraries as defendants but was amended to substitute the municipalities themselves. Prior to filing the amended complaint, the plaintiffs served notices of claim to each municipality, but these were submitted more than six years after the alleged tortious conduct. Both the City of Irondale and the City of Birmingham moved to dismiss, arguing noncompliance with Alabama Code § 11-47-23, which requires notice of claim against a municipality within six months of claim accrual. The Jefferson Circuit Court granted their motions, dismissing the claims.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama considered whether minors are exempt from the six-month notice requirement under § 11-47-23. The plaintiffs argued that minority status should toll the notice period, referencing statutory provisions that extend the time for filing suit by minors. The Supreme Court of Alabama held that § 11-47-23 contains no exception for minors and that the statutory tolling provision applies only to statutes of limitations, not notice-of-claim statutes. The court affirmed the Jefferson Circuit Court's dismissal of the claims against both municipalities, holding that minors are subject to the same notice requirements as adults under Alabama law. View "A.G.R. v. The City of Irondale" on Justia Law

The case involves the family of a deceased inmate who alleged that certain medical professionals and a health services foundation, after performing an autopsy at the request of correctional authorities, removed and retained the decedent’s organs without family consent. The family contended they were not informed or asked for permission regarding the autopsy or retention of organs, and only learned the organs were missing when preparing the funeral. They claimed to have relied on statements from hospital staff that such practices were standard, and only discovered in December 2023, through media reports, that retention of organs without next-of-kin consent was allegedly unlawful.The Montgomery Circuit Court reviewed and denied the defendants’ consolidated motion to dismiss, finding that statutory limitations could be tolled due to alleged fraudulent concealment. The court determined that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged facts that, if proven, could justify equitable tolling under Alabama law, and that the family’s claims were not time-barred because they filed suit within two years of learning the alleged conduct was illegal.On review, the Supreme Court of Alabama considered a petition for writ of mandamus by the University of Alabama Health Services Foundation and Dr. Stephanie Reilly. The Court held that mandamus relief was appropriate because, from the face of the complaint, the claims were barred by applicable statutes of limitations. The Court reasoned the causes of action accrued by November 6, 2021, when the family learned the organs were missing, and rejected arguments for tolling or for treating the alleged conduct as a continuous tort. The Court distinguished between statutes of limitations governing different claims, and found that all claims against the petitioners except the AUAGA claim were time-barred. It therefore granted the petition and directed dismissal of all claims against the petitioners except for the AUAGA claim. View "Ex parte University of Alabama Health Services Foundation" on Justia Law

The plaintiff brought claims against her former employer alleging violations of federal and state wage and hour laws. After removal to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, some claims were resolved at summary judgment, leaving the federal wage claims for trial. Before trial, the parties participated in a court-ordered mediation before a magistrate judge, during which they reached an oral settlement agreement whose terms were recited on the record. The agreement included payment to the plaintiff, confidentiality, non-defamation, and no-rehire clauses, as well as dismissal of the action with prejudice. Both parties, including the plaintiff and her counsel, confirmed their assent to the agreement.Following the mediation, the defendant prepared written settlement documents and a stipulation of dismissal. However, the plaintiff refused to sign, asserting she felt pressured and that certain terms were ambiguous or not sufficiently definite. The district court reviewed these objections after the defendant moved to enforce the settlement. The court found the agreement enforceable, denied the plaintiff’s request for an evidentiary hearing on alleged undue influence due to lack of factual support, and ordered her to execute the documents. After the plaintiff failed to comply, the court ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the district court did not err in enforcing the oral settlement agreement or in denying the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and request for an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court found no genuine dispute of material fact as to the existence or terms of the settlement and affirmed the district court’s judgment, awarding costs and attorney fees to the defendant. View "Maccarone v. Siemens Industry, Inc." on Justia Law

Jane Doe initiated a lawsuit against Gregory Burns, alleging sexual battery, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Doe filed her complaint under a pseudonym due to the sensitive nature of the sexual assault allegations but did not seek prior court approval to proceed anonymously. After more than two years of litigation, including a failed removal to federal court and a related defamation action filed by Burns in Pennsylvania using Doe’s legal name, Burns moved in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada to require Doe to litigate under her real name. Doe opposed and filed a countermotion to continue under a pseudonym.The Eighth Judicial District Court granted Doe’s countermotion, referencing extrajurisdictional caselaw, particularly the Ninth Circuit’s balancing test from Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000). The court found that Doe’s need for anonymity, given the sensitive subject matter, outweighed any prejudice to Burns or the public’s interest in disclosure. Burns then petitioned the Supreme Court of Nevada for a writ of mandamus challenging that decision.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the district court’s exercise of discretion for manifest abuse and adopted the Ninth Circuit’s balancing framework. It held that a party may proceed pseudonymously when the need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity. The court found the district court’s application of the balancing test was reasonable, that no abuse of discretion occurred, and denied Burns’s petition for writ relief. Additionally, the Supreme Court clarified procedural guidance for future pseudonymous litigation and denied Doe’s request for sanctions against Burns. View "BURNS VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law

Three advocacy organizations filed suit against the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and its executive director, seeking institutional reforms to address alleged unconstitutional and unlawful conditions in the state’s juvenile detention facilities. The plaintiffs alleged that the facilities were overcrowded, understaffed, and dangerous, resulting in violence, isolation, and inadequate services for juveniles. They based their standing on their advocacy and direct representation work with affected youth, and described both the harm to juveniles and the impact on their own organizational missions.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The district court found that Disability Rights South Carolina (DRSC) had standing to sue on behalf of certain juveniles, but those claims were rendered moot when those juveniles left custody. The court also determined that Justice 360 had standing in its own right but concluded that its claims failed on the merits. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP was found to lack standing. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Fourth Circuit held that the advocacy organizations lacked Article III standing to pursue the claims because they failed to demonstrate a sufficient personal stake in the outcome. The court found that DRSC did not meet the requirements for associational standing as its constituents lacked indicia of membership. The court also concluded that none of the organizations suffered a cognizable injury directly caused by the defendants’ actions, but rather incurred self-imposed costs through voluntary advocacy. The court further held that the plaintiffs could not bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of rights belonging to others, as they had not alleged violations of their own federal rights. The dismissal was affirmed. View "South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice" on Justia Law

A woman, Susan, was one of three beneficiaries of her father Warren’s trust. She believed the trust’s terms were unfair to her compared to her brothers, David and Michael, as her share was subject to restrictive terms and higher taxes. Warren allegedly wanted to amend the trust to make distributions equal among his children, and had consulted an attorney about this. Susan claimed that David and Michael undertook several actions in 2021 to prevent Warren from making this amendment, including interfering with his lawyer, making accusations against Susan, and isolating Warren.Previously, Susan filed a probate petition in Alameda County Superior Court, seeking to remove David as trustee and as Warren’s agent, and alleging elder isolation and similar misconduct by her brothers. The probate petition raised many of the same factual allegations later made in this civil case. After Warren’s death, Susan dismissed her probate petition without prejudice. She then filed a civil complaint, asserting claims for intentional interference with expected inheritance (IIEI) and elder financial abuse. The elder abuse claim was later dismissed, and the IIEI claim proceeded. David filed a demurrer, arguing Susan had an adequate remedy in probate, among other defenses.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case after the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed Susan’s complaint. The appellate court held that Susan’s IIEI claim could not proceed because she had an adequate remedy in probate. The court reasoned that the tort of IIEI is only available when probate does not provide a remedy, and Susan, as a beneficiary, had standing and the ability to seek relief in probate but chose to dismiss her petition. The judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed. View "Halperin v. Halperin" on Justia Law

A political action committee comprised of residents and registered voters in Richland, Washington, submitted a valid petition in October 2024 to amend the city charter. The proposed amendment would change the composition of the city council to be partly elected by district and partly at large. The Benton County Auditor, upon receiving the petition, scheduled the proposed amendment for the November 2025 general election ballot. The committee, however, sought to have the measure placed on a special election ballot in either February or April 2025.The committee filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in Benton County Superior Court, seeking an order to compel the auditor to place the amendment on the special election ballot. The superior court judge denied the writ, ruling that the amendment would appear on the November 2025 general election ballot instead. The committee obtained direct review of this decision by the Supreme Court of the State of Washington.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington unanimously concluded that the case was moot because the relevant special election dates had passed. Nonetheless, the court exercised its discretion to address the issue as one of continuing and substantial public interest. The majority of justices held that the phrase “next regular municipal election” in RCW 35.22.120 includes both special and general elections. However, a majority also agreed that mandamus was not appropriate in this case because the petitioner did not establish a nondiscretionary duty requiring the auditor to call a special election. The court affirmed the superior court’s dismissal of the writ of mandamus. View "A Better Richland v. Chilton" on Justia Law

The dispute arose after a citizen, Sanderson, served a summons and complaint on Kelley Cole, the Walsh County State’s Attorney, alleging that Cole failed to investigate crimes as required by law and deprived him of constitutional rights. Sanderson later claimed the complaint was mistakenly served and was only a draft, not intended for court filing. Cole, upon being served, filed the summons and complaint with the district court, moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and sought attorney’s fees, arguing the action was frivolous and barred by prosecutorial immunity.The District Court of Walsh County, Northeast Judicial District, reviewed the matter. Cole’s motion to dismiss was based on North Dakota’s procedural rules, which allow an action to commence upon service of summons, and permit a defendant to file the complaint. Sanderson responded by agreeing to dismiss but contested the court’s jurisdiction and objected to the lack of a hearing. The district court determined it had jurisdiction, found Sanderson had commenced the action, and concluded the complaint lacked factual allegations and was barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity. The court dismissed the action, denied Sanderson’s subsequent motions, and awarded Cole attorney’s fees, finding the claims frivolous.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held that jurisdiction was proper since Sanderson initiated the action by serving process, and procedural irregularities in filing did not affect substantial rights or deprive the court of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court agreed that the complaint failed to state a claim and that absolute prosecutorial immunity applied. It further upheld the finding of frivolousness and the award of attorney’s fees, determining there was no abuse of discretion or violation of procedural rights. View "Sanderson v. Cole" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a lawsuit against the operator of an assisted living facility, alleging negligence, breach of contract, and wrongful death after a facility employee moved the decedent, allegedly causing her health to deteriorate and leading to her death eight days later. The Superior Court of Sacramento County granted summary adjudication in favor of the defendant on the negligence and wrongful death claims but denied it as to the breach of contract claim. Plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed the entire action without prejudice rather than proceed to trial on the remaining claim.After the voluntary dismissal, plaintiffs appealed, but the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, dismissed the appeal, holding that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice was not an appealable final judgment. Plaintiffs then moved in the trial court to set aside their voluntary dismissal; when this was denied, they again appealed, and the Court of Appeal again dismissed, reiterating that there was no appealable final judgment.Subsequently, the trial court entered a judgment of costs in favor of the defendant. Plaintiffs appealed from this costs judgment, arguing that it constituted a final judgment that permitted them to challenge all prior orders in the case, including the summary adjudication. The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, rejected this argument, holding that the costs judgment, entered after a nonappealable voluntary dismissal without prejudice, was not itself an appealable final judgment for the purposes of raising the underlying claims. The court explained that plaintiffs were not challenging the costs order itself, but were seeking review of prior nonappealable orders, which is not permitted. The appeal was therefore dismissed. View "Viani v. Fair Oaks Estates, Inc." on Justia Law