Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Wil and Deborah Hansen, acting as grandparents and legal guardians of their grandchild J.L., paid tuition for J.L. to attend full-day kindergarten in Boise School District No. 1 during the 2017–2018 school year. The Hansens paid $2,250 for the second half of the kindergarten day, which they alleged violated the Idaho Constitution’s guarantee of free public education and constituted a taking of property without due process. In 2023, they filed a proposed class action seeking reimbursement and a declaration that the School District’s tuition policy was unconstitutional. The Hansens attempted to assert claims both in their own right and on behalf of J.L., arguing that J.L. was entitled to statutory tolling for minors under Idaho law.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, dismissed the Hansens’ federal takings and state inverse condemnation claims as time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitation. The court found that only the Hansens, not J.L., had standing to pursue the claims, and that the two-year and four-year statutes of limitation for the federal and state claims, respectively, had expired. The court denied the Hansens’ motion for reconsideration, and the Hansens appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court held that J.L. lacked standing to assert a Fifth Amendment takings claim because he did not personally pay the tuition or suffer a deprivation of property, and there was no allegation that he was denied educational opportunities. The Court further held that the Hansens’ Fifth Amendment claim was time-barred under Idaho’s two-year statute of limitation for such claims, and the minority tolling statute did not apply. The School District was awarded costs on appeal. View "Hansen v. Boise School Dist #1" on Justia Law

The case concerns a series of actions taken by the leadership of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in early 2025, following a change in presidential administration. The new Acting Directors, first Scott Bessent and then Russell Vought, implemented measures to significantly downsize the agency. These included pausing most agency activities, terminating employees (including the Student Loan Ombudsman), canceling contracts, declining additional funding, moving to smaller headquarters, and requiring advance approval for agency work. Some statutorily required services were neglected during this period, though agency leadership later clarified that legally mandated work should continue.Several plaintiffs, including organizations representing CFPB employees and groups that use CFPB services, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. They alleged that the agency’s actions amounted to an unlawful attempt to “shut down” the CFPB, violating both statutory mandates and the separation of powers. The district court found that agency leadership had indeed decided to shut down the Bureau and issued a preliminary injunction. This injunction required the government to reinstate terminated employees, refrain from further firings except for cause, maintain certain services, and rescind contract terminations, among other measures.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over claims related to loss of employment, as such claims must proceed through the Civil Service Reform Act’s specialized review scheme. For the remaining plaintiffs, the court found that their claims did not challenge a final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), nor did they present a constitutional claim reviewable in equity. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ attempt to challenge an inferred, overarching decision to shut down the CFPB was not viable under the APA or in equity. Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case. View "National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought" on Justia Law

A former federal employee alleged that her union mishandled an arbitration proceeding and discriminated against her based on sex and disability. She claimed that the union’s local president made unwanted sexual advances, disparaged her status as a nursing mother, and ultimately withdrew union support for her grievance against her employer. The employee filed several unfair labor practice (ULP) charges with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), some of which were dismissed as untimely, and also filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which issued her a right-to-sue letter. She then brought two lawsuits in federal district court: one alleging violations of Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against the union and its local, and another, pro se, alleging retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against the union, its local, and two union officials.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed both lawsuits for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS) precluded the employee’s claims, holding that her allegations were essentially claims for breach of the union’s duty of fair representation, which must be pursued exclusively through the FLRA’s administrative process.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the dismissals de novo. The court held that the FSLMRS does not preclude federal employees from bringing Title VII and ADA claims against their unions in federal district court, even when the alleged conduct could also constitute a ULP. The court reasoned that Congress did not intend to displace these specific statutory discrimination remedies with the FSLMRS’s more limited scheme. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the FLSA retaliation claim, finding no indication that Congress intended for such claims against unions to proceed in district court alongside the FSLMRS process. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the Title VII and ADA claims. View "Lucas v. American Federation of Government Employees" on Justia Law

Two children of a decedent alleged that their late stepmother wrongfully transferred assets belonging to their father to herself, depriving them of property they would have received under his will. The assets in question included a house and shares in a corporation. The stepmother, who had married their father after both had children from previous marriages, allegedly used a power of attorney to transfer the property to herself during the father’s cognitive decline. After both the father and stepmother died, the children claimed they were not notified of the stepmother’s estate proceedings and that the disputed property was distributed to the stepmother’s descendants.The District Court for Lincoln County dismissed the children’s complaint, citing the doctrine of jurisdictional priority because a similar proceeding was pending in county court. After the county court dismissed the children’s petition for lack of standing, the district court denied the children’s motion to alter or amend its dismissal, without further explanation. The children appealed, arguing that the district court’s reliance on jurisdictional priority was no longer justified after the county court’s dismissal.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the children had standing to pursue relief under the Nebraska Uniform Power of Attorney Act, which specifically allows a principal’s issue to petition a court to review an agent’s conduct under a power of attorney. The court found that the doctrine of jurisdictional priority no longer applied once the county court proceeding was dismissed. However, the Supreme Court also determined that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, as the children would not have inherited the disputed property under the will or by operation of law, even if the transfers were invalid. Nevertheless, the court ruled that the children should be given leave to amend their complaint and reversed and remanded the case with directions to allow amendment. View "Kimball v. Rosedale Ranch" on Justia Law

After a car accident in January 2017, Lee Scheurer was injured and Ann Maland was found to be at fault. Scheurer submitted a written notice of claim to Maland’s insurer in September 2017 and later made a settlement offer in July 2020. The parties could not agree on damages, and Scheurer filed a negligence lawsuit against Maland in November 2020. After Maland’s death, her estate was represented by a special administrator. The case proceeded to a jury trial, which awarded Scheurer $292,340 in damages. The district court subsequently reduced the award to $194,631 to account for collateral source payments, such as insurance, and awarded Scheurer $53,320 in preverdict interest.The Minnesota District Court determined that preverdict interest began accruing when Scheurer commenced the action, not when he served his notice of claim, because he did not file the lawsuit within two years of the notice. The court also held that preverdict interest should be calculated on the reduced judgment amount after deducting collateral sources. Scheurer appealed, arguing that interest should accrue from the notice of claim and be calculated on the full jury verdict. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court on the accrual issue but reversed on the calculation issue, holding that interest should be calculated on the jury verdict before collateral source reductions.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed both issues. It held that, under Minnesota Statutes section 549.09, subdivision 1(b), the requirement that an action be commenced within two years of a written notice of claim for interest to accrue from the notice applies even if a written settlement offer is made. The court also held that preverdict interest is to be calculated on the judgment after collateral source deductions, not on the full jury verdict. The decision of the court of appeals was affirmed in part and reversed in part, reinstating the district court’s calculation of interest. View "Scheurer vs. Shrewsbury" on Justia Law

K.S. gave birth to her daughter, Jane, in August 2018 and struggled with ongoing methamphetamine abuse before, during, and after her pregnancy. Jane’s early life was marked by instability, with K.S. frequently leaving her in the care of relatives and exposing her to unsafe environments. After a series of rehabilitation attempts and relapses, Jane was adjudicated a neglected child by the Rankin County Youth Court in November 2019, and custody was transferred among family members. By early 2022, Jane was in the durable legal custody of M.F.D. and M.D., K.S.’s cousin and her husband.M.D. and M.F.D. filed a petition in the Rankin County Chancery Court in August 2022 to terminate K.S.’s parental rights and adopt Jane. Before trial, they requested the youth court to transfer jurisdiction to the chancery court, which the youth court granted, finding all matters resolved and the transfer in Jane’s best interest. The chancery court then held a trial, denied K.S.’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and terminated her parental rights based on abandonment, desertion, unfitness, and failure to provide for Jane’s needs. The court also found reunification was not in Jane’s best interest and subsequently granted the adoption. K.S. appealed the termination and later filed a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the adoption, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which was denied.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the consolidated appeals. It held that the chancery court had subject-matter jurisdiction to terminate K.S.’s parental rights because the youth court had formally relinquished jurisdiction, and no statute prohibited such transfer. The Court also found no manifest error in the termination decision, as substantial evidence supported the chancellor’s findings. Finally, the Court declined to adopt a rule requiring automatic stays of adoption proceedings pending appeals of termination orders. The judgments of the chancery court were affirmed. View "K.S. v. M.D. and M.F.D." on Justia Law

A trading company and a base oil manufacturer entered into a sales agreement in 2016, under which the manufacturer would serve as the exclusive North American sales representative for a high-quality base oil product distributed by the trading company. The agreement included noncompete provisions and was set to expire at the end of 2021. In late 2020, suspicions arose between the parties regarding potential breaches of the agreement, leading to a series of letters in which the trading company accused the manufacturer of selling a competing product and threatened termination if the alleged breach was not cured. The manufacturer responded by denying any breach and, after further correspondence, declared the agreement terminated. The trading company agreed that the agreement was terminated, and both parties ceased their business relationship.The trading company then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging antitrust violations, breach of contract, business disparagement, and misappropriation of trade secrets. The manufacturer counterclaimed for breach of contract and tortious interference. After a bench trial, the district court found in favor of the manufacturer on the breach of contract and trade secret claims, awarding over $1.3 million in damages. However, the court determined that the agreement was mutually terminated, not due to anticipatory repudiation by the trading company, and denied the manufacturer’s request for attorneys’ fees and prevailing party costs.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the trading company did not commit anticipatory repudiation and that the agreement was mutually terminated. The Fifth Circuit also affirmed the denial of prevailing party costs under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the appellate court vacated the denial of attorneys’ fees under the agreement’s fee-shifting provision and remanded for further proceedings on that issue. View "Penthol v. Vertex Energy" on Justia Law

The case concerns the death of Skyler A. Womack, a dependent adult with disabilities who resided at a 24-hour skilled nursing facility operated by Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. After Skyler’s death, his parents filed suit against the facility, alleging that neglect—including understaffing, failure to maintain the facility, and inadequate provision of basic needs—led to his injuries and death. The claims included survivor actions and a wrongful death claim. Notably, Skyler had signed an arbitration agreement upon admission, which stated that any medical malpractice disputes would be subject to arbitration and purported to bind his heirs.In the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Silverscreen moved to compel arbitration of all claims based on the arbitration agreement and the California Supreme Court’s decision in Ruiz v. Podolsky. The trial court compelled arbitration of the survivor claims but denied arbitration for the parents’ wrongful death claim, reasoning that the claim was based on neglect under the Elder Abuse Act, not professional negligence. The California Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the wrongful death claim was subject to arbitration because it was based on professional negligence as defined by the agreement and relevant statutes.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Court held that the exception recognized in Ruiz v. Podolsky applies only to wrongful death claims that are based on medical malpractice as defined by the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), specifically disputes about whether medical services were improperly rendered. The Court clarified that not all wrongful death claims against health care providers fall within this exception—claims based on custodial neglect, as opposed to professional negligence in medical care, are not subject to arbitration under section 1295 and Ruiz. The Court remanded the case to allow plaintiffs to amend their complaint to clarify the basis of their wrongful death claim. View "Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc." on Justia Law

The petitioner, who entered the United States without authorization in 2006, lived with his wife and three children, all of whom are U.S. citizens. He was the primary financial provider for the family, earning significantly more than his wife and providing health insurance for the household. The family faced removal proceedings after the petitioner was arrested for driving on a suspended license and leaving the scene of an accident. The petitioner argued that his removal would cause his children exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, citing their emotional distress and the family’s financial dependence on him.An immigration judge found that the petitioner met all statutory requirements for cancellation of removal except for the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard. The judge determined that, while the family would experience financial and emotional difficulties, these did not rise above what is typically expected in removal cases. The petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed the immigration judge’s decision, assuming for the sake of argument that all three children were qualifying relatives.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case, holding that it had jurisdiction to consider legal questions related to the application of the hardship standard. The court applied a deferential standard of review, as suggested by recent Supreme Court precedent, and concluded that the immigration judge’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and were not clearly erroneous. The court held that the petitioner had not demonstrated that his removal would result in hardship substantially beyond what is ordinarily expected in such cases. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Santos Mendoza v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A 13-year-old juvenile pleaded guilty to fourth degree assault and was placed under community supervision with several conditions, including abstaining from alcohol. Over several months, she repeatedly violated these conditions, including using alcohol, failing to report to her probation officer, and leaving her home. The State sought multiple bench warrants, ultimately arguing that her actions, including a suicide attempt while intoxicated, posed a serious threat to public safety. The juvenile court issued a bench warrant, finding that her conduct met the “serious threat to public safety” standard required by a court rule, JuCR 7.16.On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals determined that the facts did not meet JuCR 7.16’s “serious threat to public safety” requirement, as the connection between her actions and a threat to public safety was too attenuated. However, the appellate court also held that JuCR 7.16 irreconcilably conflicted with RCW 13.40.040, a statute with less restrictive prerequisites for issuing juvenile arrest warrants. The majority concluded that JuCR 7.16 was substantive, not procedural, and therefore invalid because it conflicted with the legislature’s authority over substantive law. A dissenting judge disagreed, viewing the rule as procedural.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reversed the Court of Appeals. It held that JuCR 7.16 is a procedural rule governing the issuance of warrants and falls within the court’s inherent, constitutional, and statutory authority. The court further held that JuCR 7.16 and RCW 13.40.040 can be harmonized, requiring courts to satisfy both sets of prerequisites before issuing a warrant. The court also clarified that “serious threat to public safety” under JuCR 7.16 does not include threats solely to the juvenile’s own safety. The Supreme Court declined to recuse itself from the case. View "State v. A.M.W." on Justia Law