Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Humane officers from the Humane Society of the Sierra Foothills seized animals from Matthew C. Bakos's property under a search warrant issued pursuant to Penal Code section 597.1. Bakos subsequently sued the officers and a volunteer veterinarian, alleging negligence and abuse of process. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that although the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity due to the lack of a postseizure administrative hearing, Bakos could not establish essential elements of his causes of action.The Superior Court of Placer County found that Bakos could not prove negligence because he could not establish a duty of care or breach of duty owed to him. The court also concluded that Bakos could not establish negligence per se because he was not a member of the class of persons for whose protection the statute was adopted, and the harm he suffered was not the type of harm the statute was designed to prevent. Regarding the abuse of process claim, the court found no evidence that any defendant harbored an ulterior motive. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that summary judgment was proper as to the veterinarian, Fritz, and summary adjudication was proper as to all defendants on the abuse of process cause of action. However, the court found that there were triable issues of material fact regarding the negligence cause of action against the Humane Society, Roach, and Frieborn because Bakos was not afforded the opportunity for a postseizure administrative hearing, and the defendants did not establish entitlement to qualified immunity. The appellate court reversed the judgment as to the negligence cause of action against the Humane Society, Roach, and Frieborn, and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. View "Bakos v. Roach" on Justia Law

Michael Wood incurred credit card debt with Pentagon Federal Credit Union (PenFed) and defaulted. PenFed reported the debt to credit reporting agencies, but Wood disputed the debt in writing. PenFed investigated and concluded the debt was valid. Later, Security Credit Services, LLC (SCS) purchased Wood's debt from PenFed and reported it as delinquent to a credit reporting agency without noting Wood's dispute. Wood alleged that SCS violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by failing to communicate that he disputed the debt.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of SCS. The court found that Wood had standing to sue but concluded that PenFed reasonably interpreted Wood's lack of response to its letter as an indication that he no longer disputed the debt. Therefore, the court determined that SCS did not know and should not have known that Wood still disputed the debt.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Wood had standing because the harm he alleged was analogous to defamation, a recognized common law injury. The court also found that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether SCS should have known about Wood's dispute. Specifically, the court noted conflicting evidence about SCS's understanding of what constitutes a disputed account and whether SCS shared PenFed's interpretation that Wood's silence meant he no longer disputed the debt. The court concluded that SCS's failure to communicate Wood's dispute could be considered negligent under the FDCPA. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Wood v. Security Credit Services, LLC" on Justia Law

A group of Baltimore City registered voters, led by Anthony J. Ambridge, filed a petition seeking judicial review of a proposed amendment to the Baltimore City Charter, known as "Question F," which was to appear on the 2024 general election ballot. The petitioners argued that the proposed charter amendment was not proper "charter material" and that the ballot language was not understandable. The Maryland State Board of Elections opposed the petition, arguing that the claims were barred by laches and that the judicial review mechanism used by the petitioners was inappropriate.The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County ruled in favor of the petitioners, determining that the claims were not barred by laches and could be raised under the judicial review mechanism. The court found that Question F violated Article XI-A of the Maryland Constitution as it was not proper charter material and that the ballot language was not easily understandable by voters. The court ordered that the results of Question F should not be certified.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that EL § 9-209(a) is not a proper mechanism to challenge whether a proposed charter amendment is proper charter material or whether the ballot language meets the standards for understandability. The Court also held that the petitioners' claims were barred by laches due to the unreasonable delay in filing the petition, which caused prejudice to the State Board, the City, and the electorate. The Court further concluded that the ballot language conveyed, with minimum reasonable clarity, the actual scope and effect of the measure, allowing voters to make an informed choice. The Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the circuit court's order and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the appellants. View "State Bd. of Elections v. Ambridge" on Justia Law

Caruso Builder Belle Oak, LLC entered into a contract with Ronalda Sullivan on July 17, 2015, for the sale of a property in Prince George’s County, Maryland. The property was subject to deferred private water and sewer assessments, and Caruso provided a disclosure that was allegedly noncompliant with Maryland’s Real Property Article § 14-117(a)(3)(i). The parties settled on the contract on February 24, 2016. On February 22, 2019, Sullivan filed a complaint against Caruso seeking monetary penalties under § 14-117(b)(2)(i) for the noncompliant disclosure.The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County dismissed Sullivan’s complaint, ruling that her claim was barred by Maryland’s three-year statute of limitations, which began to run on the date of the contract, July 17, 2015. Sullivan appealed, and the Appellate Court of Maryland reversed the circuit court’s decision, holding that the statute of limitations began to run on the date of settlement, February 24, 2016, making Sullivan’s claim timely.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that a seller’s violation of § 14-117(a)(3)(i) gives rise to a cause of action because the purchaser suffers an informational harm. The court determined that the statute of limitations began to run on the date of the contract, July 17, 2015, because Sullivan knew or should have known of the noncompliant disclosure at that time. Therefore, her claim filed on February 22, 2019, was barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the Appellate Court’s decision and remanded with instructions to affirm the Circuit Court’s dismissal of Sullivan’s complaint. View "Caruso Builder Belle Oak v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, property owners in Danbury, Connecticut, challenged the tax assessments on their properties, each valued at over one million dollars, by appealing to the Superior Court. They were required by statute to file appraisals of their properties within 120 days of filing their appeals. The plaintiffs requested extensions to this deadline, which the court granted. However, they failed to file the appraisals with the court by the extended deadlines, although they did provide the appraisals to the defendant's counsel.The trial court initially dismissed five of the six tax appeals for failure to meet the filing deadline, concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court later granted the plaintiffs' motions to open the judgments of dismissal and for reargument, citing similar cases where the court had not dismissed appeals under similar circumstances. The court denied the defendant's corrected motion to dismiss the sixth appeal, finding no prejudice to the defendant from the late filing.The defendant appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the plaintiffs' failure to timely file the appraisals. The plaintiffs contended that the appeal was moot because they had filed new tax appeals under a recent statutory amendment allowing for such actions if previous appeals were dismissed under certain conditions.The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the appeal was not moot, as the underlying appeals were not "dismissed" for purposes of the new statutory provision, given that the judgments of dismissal had been opened. The court further held that the appraisal filing requirement in § 12-117a (a) (2) is not subject matter jurisdictional. The requirement is mandatory but arises after the commencement of a tax appeal, and the time period for filing the appraisal can be extended by the court for good cause. The judgments of the Superior Court were affirmed. View "7 Germantown Road, LLC v. Danbury" on Justia Law

A fire destroyed the Chimayo post office in New Mexico, which was leased by Thomas Workman to the United States Postal Service (USPS). Workman filed a petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to take five depositions before deciding whether to sue USPS. He claimed he needed these depositions to complete his investigation into the fire's cause, responsible parties, and USPS's operation of the facility. The petition was denied because Workman did not provide a valid reason why he could not already bring a lawsuit or explain why the testimony would be lost if not taken immediately.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied Workman's petition. The court found that Workman failed to show an inability to bring a lawsuit and a risk of losing testimony. Workman argued that he could not bring his claims due to an incomplete investigation and that the testimony might be lost over time. However, the court determined that these reasons did not meet the requirements of Rule 27.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that Workman did not demonstrate a true inability to bring a lawsuit or a sufficient risk of losing testimony. The court emphasized that Rule 27 is not intended for discovering facts to frame a complaint but to perpetuate known testimony that might be lost. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of the petition. View "Workman v. United States Postal Service" on Justia Law

Curtis Temple, a cattle rancher and member of the Oglala Sioux Indian Tribe (OST), had his grazing permits on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation expire on October 31, 2012. He reapplied for new permits, but another OST member, Donald Buffington, also applied. The OST allocation committee found Temple had over 1,600 cattle, exceeding the 300 animal unit limit, making Buffington the eligible applicant. Temple's permits were awarded to Buffington, and Temple's appeals to the OST executive committee and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) were unsuccessful. Temple continued to graze his cattle on the land allocated to Buffington, leading to multiple trespass notices and eventual impoundment of his cattle by the BIA.Temple filed a lawsuit in the District of South Dakota in August 2015, seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) and contesting the permit allocation. The district court denied the TRO and dismissed Temple's permit allocation claims, requiring him to exhaust administrative remedies. Temple's due process claims regarding the impoundment of his cattle proceeded, but the district court found that the written notices of trespass provided to Temple were sufficient and did not violate his due process rights. Temple's motion to continue the trial was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Temple was provided due process through the written notices of trespass and had ample opportunity to contest the trespass determinations. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Temple's permit allocation claims for failure to exhaust tribal remedies, as he did not appeal the tribal court's decision. Lastly, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Temple's motion to continue the trial. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Curtis Temple v. Roberts" on Justia Law

Robert E. Dupuis and twelve other plaintiffs filed lawsuits against the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, seeking damages for sexual abuse allegedly perpetrated by the Bishop’s clergy when the plaintiffs were minor children. Their claims were previously barred by the statute of limitations. The Bishop moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that 14 M.R.S. § 752-C(3) (2022), which purports to revive the plaintiffs’ claims, deprives the Bishop of a constitutionally protected vested right.The Business and Consumer Docket (McKeon, J.) denied the Bishop’s motions but reported its orders to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court under Maine Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(c). The court accepted the report to determine whether the retroactive application of section 752-C(3) is constitutional.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the retroactive application of section 752-C(3) contravenes centuries of precedent and multiple provisions of the Maine Declaration of Rights, as well as the Constitution’s provisions regarding separation of powers. The court concluded that once a statute of limitations has expired for a claim, a right to be free of that claim has vested, and the claim cannot be revived. Therefore, section 752-C(3) is unconstitutional as applied to expired claims. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Dupuis v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland" on Justia Law

In 2005, the District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department implemented a policy prohibiting firefighters from wearing facial hair that interferes with the sealing surface of a face mask, effectively banning beards. Firefighters who refused to shave were reassigned to administrative duties and faced termination after four days of noncompliance. The Department did not make exceptions for religious reasons. A group of bearded firefighters sued, claiming the policy violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The district court ruled in favor of the firefighters, finding the policy was not the least restrictive means of furthering the Department's interest in operational effectiveness, and issued an injunction preventing enforcement of the policy against them.The firefighters were allowed to work in field operations with their beards until March 2020, when the Department implemented a new facial hair policy due to COVID-19, again reassigning bearded firefighters to administrative roles. The firefighters objected, claiming the new policy violated the 2007 injunction. After unsuccessful settlement negotiations, the firefighters filed a motion for civil contempt, alleging the Department violated the injunction. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that the Department acted reasonably under unprecedented circumstances and that any damages were minimal.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court applied the wrong legal framework by assuming it had general discretion to deny contempt despite a potential violation of the injunction. The appellate court vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case, instructing the lower court to determine whether the Department violated the 2007 injunction and if any recognized defenses to contempt applied. The court emphasized that good faith and lack of willfulness are not defenses to civil contempt. View "Potter v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Henry Strickland contested the results of a city commissioner election in Waycross, Georgia, after losing to Alvin Nelson. Strickland argued that the election used an outdated 2005 map of voting districts instead of the correct 2011 map, resulting in 32 voters casting ballots in the wrong districts. The trial court agreed, finding that the use of the 2005 map could have affected the election outcome, which Nelson won by 18 votes. Consequently, the court vacated the election and ordered a new one to be held in November 2024 using the 2011 map.The trial court denied Nelson's motion to dismiss Strickland's petition for insufficient process and service of process and rejected Nelson's argument that the petition should be dismissed for lack of expeditious pursuit. The court found irregularities in the election due to the use of the 2005 map and ordered a new election. Nelson appealed the trial court's decision, and the Supreme Court of Georgia granted his request for a stay pending the appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the trial court's judgment. The Court held that the 2011 map was never effective because the required filings with the Secretary of State and the clerk of the superior court, as mandated by OCGA § 36-35-5, were never made. Since the 2011 map was not effective at the time of the election, there was no basis for the trial court's conclusion that enough illegal or irregular votes were counted to change or cast doubt on the election outcome. Therefore, Strickland's petition was rejected, and the trial court's order vacating the election was reversed. View "NELSON v. STRICKLAND" on Justia Law