Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In the fall of 2025, federal immigration authorities increased enforcement activities in Chicago through “Operation Midway Blitz,” prompting protests near an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Broadview, Illinois. Protesters and journalists alleged that federal officers from ICE, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights by deploying tear gas and other chemical agents without justification. The plaintiffs described instances of excessive force and sought injunctive relief to stop such practices.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a temporary restraining order and later a broad preliminary injunction that applied districtwide, enjoining all federal law enforcement officers and agencies from using certain crowd control tactics. The court also certified a plaintiff class and required ongoing compliance reporting from DHS officials. The government appealed the preliminary injunction, arguing it was overbroad and infringed on separation of powers principles. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stayed the injunction, citing its expansive scope and concerns over standing.Subsequently, as the enforcement operation ended and no further constitutional violations were reported, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the case. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice and decertified the class, contrary to the plaintiffs’ request for dismissal with prejudice. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that extraordinary circumstances warranted vacating the district court’s preliminary injunction. The Seventh Circuit held that vacatur was appropriate because the case had become moot and to prevent the now-unreviewable injunction from producing adverse legal consequences in future litigation. The court vacated the injunction and dismissed the appeal. View "Chicago Headline Club v. Noem" on Justia Law

A married couple had a child in Las Vegas, Nevada. Shortly after the child’s birth, the mother and child traveled to Canada, initially intending a temporary visit for a funeral. Their stay in Canada was extended unexpectedly due to circumstances including a home repair in Nevada and temporary employment, but the mother continued regular communications with the father and intended to return. During the extended stay, the couple’s relationship deteriorated. The mother filed for custody in a Canadian court, and the father, also in Canada, initiated a Hague Convention proceeding seeking the child’s return to Nevada. The Canadian court determined that the child was a habitual resident of Canada and denied the return request. The father appealed unsuccessfully and participated in the Canadian custody proceedings, contesting jurisdiction.After the failed Hague petition, the father filed for divorce, child custody, and child support in Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court. That court denied his motions, determining it lacked jurisdiction since significant proceedings were already underway in Canada and concluding Nevada was not the child’s home state. The father appealed, arguing that the district court wrongly declined jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the matter. It held that under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), the child’s absence from Nevada was temporary; thus, Nevada was the child’s home state for jurisdictional purposes when the custody action was filed. The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court’s order, concluding that Nevada did have home state jurisdiction. However, due to the Canadian court’s pending custody proceedings and the Hague determination, the Nevada court should consider whether to defer jurisdiction to Canada. The Supreme Court of Nevada remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to attempt communication with the Canadian court and to allow briefing on the most appropriate forum before determining whether to decline jurisdiction. View "Gill v. Gill" on Justia Law

A business agreement was made in early 2020 for the rental of a yacht for an event. The agreement involved a payment of $18,280, which was to cover a deposit and a down payment toward the rental fee. The event was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the party that made the payment requested a refund. The yacht provider did not return the funds. The party seeking the refund sued under several theories, including unjust enrichment and breach of contract.After mandatory arbitration resulted in an award for the plaintiff, the defendant requested a trial de novo, and the matter proceeded under Nevada’s Short Trial Program. A short trial judge rendered a proposed judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant objected to this proposed judgment, but the short trial judge, after consulting with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Office, ruled on the objection and later denied the defendant’s NRCP 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment, or for a new trial. The district court then entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, apparently approving the short trial judge’s proposed judgment.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether a short trial judge has authority to adjudicate objections to a proposed judgment and post-judgment NRCP 59 motions. The court held that under the plain language of NSTR 3(d), only the district court—not a short trial judge—may review and adjudicate objections to proposed judgments and NRCP 59 motions. The court found that the short trial judge exceeded her authority by ruling on these matters. The Supreme Court of Nevada vacated the district court’s judgment and the short trial judge’s post-judgment orders, remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "VEGAS AQUA, LLC VS. JUPITOR CORP." on Justia Law

An individual died from a heroin overdose while incarcerated in a county jail, after another inmate smuggled the drug into the facility and provided it to him. The jail had a known, ongoing issue with inmates smuggling drugs and evading searches, and the person who brought in the drugs had a history of such behavior but was not thoroughly searched. The decedent’s estate sued the county, alleging negligence for failing to prevent the smuggling and resultant death.The Superior Court denied the county’s motion for summary judgment, in which the county sought to invoke two statutory defenses: the felony bar defense (RCW 4.24.420) and the intoxication defense (RCW 5.40.060). The court certified the case for interlocutory review. The Washington Court of Appeals accepted review, focusing on whether the jailer’s special common law duty to protect inmates precluded the county from asserting these statutory defenses. The Court of Appeals concluded that the county could not invoke the statutory defenses, based on prior Washington Supreme Court decisions interpreting the jail’s special duty.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case. It held that the existence of the jailer’s special common law duty to protect incarcerated individuals does not preclude the county from raising the statutory felony and intoxication defenses enacted by the legislature. The court concluded that these statutes do not abrogate the jailer’s duty but create separate affirmative defenses that, if proven, bar liability. The court therefore reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the county may assert both statutory defenses. View "Anderson v. Grant County" on Justia Law

Two individuals entered into a loan agreement and mortgage with a bank in Puerto Rico, using their home as collateral. After a decade, they faced financial difficulties and stopped making payments. The bank denied a request to modify the loan but proposed a short sale. The bank then initiated foreclosure proceedings in Puerto Rico’s Court of First Instance, resulting in a judgment against the borrowers. Multiple short sale offers were rejected until one was conditionally accepted, but the sale did not close in time and the home was foreclosed. Subsequently, the bank garnished funds from the borrowers, who then filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico confirmed the borrowers’ Chapter 13 plan, noting their intent to pursue claims against the bank. The borrowers filed an adversary proceeding seeking damages and other relief. The bank moved to dismiss the adversary complaint, but the bankruptcy court denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed. The borrowers later filed a similar complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and moved to withdraw the adversary proceeding to the district court. The district court denied the withdrawal as untimely and dismissed the separate federal case. After the borrowers completed their bankruptcy plan and received a discharge, the bankruptcy court dismissed the adversary proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the bankruptcy court erred in finding it automatically lost jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding post-discharge. The appellate court vacated and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower courts to reassess jurisdiction and properly address the borrowers’ motion for withdrawal and their jury trial request. View "Guallini-Indij v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

A patient was hospitalized after contracting COVID-19 and, as his condition worsened, was transferred between several hospitals in Kentucky and Indiana. During his treatment, he was intubated, placed on a ventilator, and medically immobilized. While under this care, he developed a severe bed sore that progressed to necrotizing fasciitis. Despite ongoing treatment, he ultimately died, with his death certificate listing multiple causes including cardiopulmonary arrest and sepsis. His estate claimed that negligence in the treatment of the bed sore caused his death and filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint against more than eighty healthcare providers.The case began when the estate filed its complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance, while a medical-review panel was being requested. Before the panel was constituted, the providers moved for summary judgment in Vanderburgh Superior Court, arguing they were immune from liability under Indiana’s Healthcare Immunity Act, Premises Immunity Act, and the federal PREP Act. The trial court granted summary judgment for the providers, finding that statutory immunity applied and that the court, not the medical-review panel, could decide the immunity issue. The estate appealed, and the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the question of immunity required expert input from the medical-review panel, especially regarding causation.The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacating the Court of Appeals’ decision. It held that the trial court could make a preliminary determination on statutory immunity without waiting for a medical-review panel’s opinion, since the facts relating to the connection between the patient’s COVID-19 treatment and his injury were undisputed for summary judgment purposes. The court further held that the providers were immune from civil liability under both state and federal law, as the patient’s injuries arose from treatment provided in response to the COVID-19 emergency. The court affirmed summary judgment for the providers. View "Estate of Waggoner v. Anonymous Health System, Inc." on Justia Law

This case arises from multi-district litigation involving claims that certain aqueous film-forming foam products caused injuries, and that Illinois Union Insurance Company issued excess liability policies to BASF Corporation, which allegedly designed and sold components of those products. Plaintiffs, who originally filed their cases in Wisconsin state court, assert that Illinois Union is directly liable under Wisconsin law for BASF’s conduct. After removal to federal court, the cases were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina under the multi-district litigation statute.The District Court for the District of South Carolina, managing the consolidated proceedings, had entered case management orders requiring motions either to be signed by lead counsel or, if not, to be preceded by a motion for leave of court. Illinois Union sought leave to file a motion to stay the proceedings against it pending arbitration, contending that its insurance policies required arbitration of the dispute. The district court denied Illinois Union’s motion for leave, first citing a failure to consult with lead counsel as required, but then acknowledging that consultation had ultimately occurred. The decisive reason for denial was that lead counsel did not consent to Illinois Union’s motion, and the district court ruled that, absent such consent, the motion could not be filed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s order. It held that, while district courts have broad discretion to manage multi-district litigation, they may not exercise this authority in a way that prevents a party from asserting its statutory right under the Federal Arbitration Act to seek a stay of litigation pending arbitration. Because the district court’s order effectively barred Illinois Union from filing its stay motion based on lack of lead counsel’s consent, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bouvet v. Illinois Union Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Centron Services, Inc., a debt collector, brought suit against Christopher and Alyson Hollewijn to recover on five separate medical debt accounts assigned to Centron by three different medical providers for services rendered between December 2020 and March 2022. The Hollewijns received billing statements from the providers, with one account in particular involving Bozeman Health and a hospital bill for services rendered on November 4, 2021. After insurance paid a portion of the bill and applied a unilateral “provider discount,” Bozeman Health billed the Hollewijns for the remaining balance. The Hollewijns, through their health plan, disputed the charge in writing 93 days after the first billing statement.The Hollewijns moved for summary judgment in the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, focusing only on the Bozeman Health account for November 4, 2021. The District Court granted summary judgment in their favor and dismissed the entire suit, finding that Centron could not establish an account stated as a matter of law. The court determined that the Hollewijns’ written objection to the bill was timely, defeating Centron’s claim.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the District Court erred in dismissing all five accounts when only one was addressed in the Hollewijns’ motion, as no evidentiary or legal showing was made for the other four. The Supreme Court also found that whether the Hollewijns’ 93-day delay in objecting to the Bozeman Health bill was unreasonable presented a genuine issue of material fact for the jury, not an issue to be resolved by summary judgment. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Centron v. Hollewijn" on Justia Law

Richard and Lucia Parks, along with their family real estate business Parks Diversified, L.P. and related entities, became involved in a legal dispute after their son, David Klein, filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition on behalf of Parks Diversified. The Parkses asserted that Klein did not have the authority to file the petition and claimed he did so as part of a scheme to take control of family assets. Despite these objections, the parties entered into a stipulation to dismiss the bankruptcy case, with the Parkses waiving certain claims. Later, the Parkses and their entities filed a complaint in California state court against Klein and others, alleging various causes of action related to the alleged unauthorized bankruptcy filing.Following this, the law firm representing some of the defendants requested the bankruptcy court to reopen the case, and the state court complaint was removed to the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim and granted special motions to strike. On appeal, the United States District Court for the Central District of California found that the bankruptcy court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, holding that the issue of corporate authority to file a bankruptcy petition was not jurisdictional. The district court remanded with instructions to vacate orders where jurisdiction was lacking and to remand remaining claims to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that, consistent with precedents from the Second and Third Circuits, a lack of corporate authority to file a bankruptcy petition does not deprive the bankruptcy court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court clarified that while proper authorization is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional, and thus affirmed the lower court’s conclusion on this point. View "TALON DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS INC. V. BECKER" on Justia Law

Parents and teachers in California challenged state policies that require schools to keep information about students’ gender transitioning confidential from parents unless the students consent. The parents objected to being excluded from knowledge and decisions regarding their children’s gender presentation at school, especially when those actions conflicted with their religious beliefs or their desire to participate in their children’s mental health care. Several parents described situations in which they were not informed about their children’s gender identity at school until after significant mental health crises occurred. Teachers objected to being compelled to use students’ preferred names and pronouns contrary to the wishes of parents and their own beliefs.The case was initiated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, where two teachers first challenged district policies. As litigation unfolded, the case expanded to include state officials as defendants and parents as additional plaintiffs. The District Court certified parent and teacher classes, granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, and entered a permanent injunction that prohibited schools from withholding information from parents and required adherence to parental directions on names and pronouns. The District Court also ordered state-created instructional materials to include notice of the rights protected by the injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a stay of the injunction pending appeal, expressing procedural concerns about class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and skepticism regarding the merits of the constitutional claims.The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the Ninth Circuit’s stay as to the parent plaintiffs, concluding that the parents seeking religious exemptions are likely to succeed on their Free Exercise and Due Process claims. The Court found the parents face irreparable harm and that equities favor them. The procedural objections raised by the Ninth Circuit were deemed unlikely to prevail. The application to vacate was otherwise denied. View "Mirabelli v. Bonta" on Justia Law