Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A patent owner brought two infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against a semiconductor company, alleging that certain integrated circuit products infringed three patents related to electronic circuitry and power-saving features. The accused products included specific chips that allegedly implemented a particular feature. After the lawsuits were filed, the defendant challenged the cases on grounds including improper service, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim. During the litigation, the plaintiff produced a licensing agreement with a third party, and subsequently entered into another agreement covering the accused products. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed both cases without prejudice.Following the dismissals, the defendant moved for attorneys’ fees, costs, and sanctions, arguing that the lawsuits were baseless. The district court denied the defendant’s motions for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, costs under Rule 54(d)(1), and sanctions under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, but converted the voluntary dismissals to dismissals with prejudice as a sanction. The court also denied the defendant’s discovery requests related to confidentiality and access to certain materials.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in denying fees under § 285 and costs under Rule 54(d)(1), because the defendant became a prevailing party when the dismissals were converted to dismissals with prejudice. The Federal Circuit vacated those portions of the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of Rule 11 sanctions and fees under § 1927, finding no abuse of discretion. It also affirmed the denial of the remaining discovery request, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the protective order. The judgment was thus vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. View "FUTURE LINK SYSTEMS, LLC v. REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION " on Justia Law

A plaintiff alleged that, between 1965 and 1969, while he was a young child attending an elementary school in a California school district, he was repeatedly sexually assaulted by the school’s principal. The complaint stated that school staff and faculty were aware or suspected the abuse, and that similar abuse occurred to other students. The plaintiff claimed ongoing psychological and emotional harm as a result. He brought four negligence-based causes of action against the school district, asserting that he was not required to present a government tort claim before filing suit due to statutory changes exempting such claims.The Superior Court of Merced County sustained the school district’s demurrer without leave to amend, dismissing the complaint. The court found that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Government Claims Act’s claim presentation requirement was fatal to his case, and concluded that legislative changes extending the statute of limitations for childhood sexual assault did not alter the deadline for filing a claim against a public entity.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed whether Assembly Bill No. 218’s retroactive waiver of the Government Claims Act’s claim presentation requirement for claims under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 violated the California Constitution’s gift clause. The appellate court held that the retroactive waiver did not create a new liability or cause of action, but merely removed a procedural barrier to suit. The court further found that the legislative purpose of aiding victims of childhood sexual assault served a valid public purpose and did not constitute an unconstitutional gift of public funds. The judgment of dismissal was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Doe R.L. v. Merced City School District" on Justia Law

Philip Myers, a native and citizen of Liberia, was adopted by a U.S. citizen and entered the United States as a child. He later sustained several criminal convictions, including for aggravated felonies. In 2021, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him. Myers claimed derivative citizenship through his adoptive mother, who had become a naturalized U.S. citizen, and also alleged that he had been abused by her. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had previously denied his derivative citizenship application, finding insufficient evidence that he was in his adoptive mother’s legal and physical custody at the relevant time. During removal proceedings, Myers, sometimes represented by counsel and sometimes pro se, was found competent to proceed without safeguards. He applied for various forms of relief, including asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture, but these were denied.The Immigration Judge ordered Myers removed to Liberia. Myers appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing that the competency determination was flawed and that he should have been found incompetent to proceed pro se. The BIA found no clear error in the Immigration Judge’s competency finding and dismissed the appeal. Myers then moved to reopen the proceedings, citing a pending motion with USCIS regarding derivative citizenship, alleged errors in the competency determination, a new asylum claim based on his sexual orientation, and a pending T-visa application as a victim of sex trafficking. The BIA denied the motion to reopen, and Myers was removed to Liberia.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and found none. The court also rejected Myers’s constitutional challenge to the statutory requirements for derivative citizenship and found no genuine issue of material fact regarding his nationality claim. The petition for review was denied. View "Myers v. Bondi" on Justia Law

In 2019, a well-known advice columnist publicly accused a sitting U.S. president of sexually assaulting her in a department store in 1996. The president, while in office, responded with public statements denying the allegations, asserting he did not know the accuser, and claiming she fabricated the story for personal and political gain. The accuser then filed a defamation lawsuit in New York state court, alleging that these statements were false and damaged her reputation. The case was removed to federal court after the Department of Justice certified that the president acted within the scope of his office, but the DOJ later withdrew this certification. During the litigation, the accuser also brought a separate lawsuit under a new state law allowing survivors of sexual assault to sue regardless of the statute of limitations, which resulted in a jury finding that the president had sexually abused and defamed her after leaving office.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted partial summary judgment for the accuser in the original defamation case, relying on issue preclusion from the verdict in the later case. The trial was limited to damages, and the jury awarded the accuser $83.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The president moved for a new trial or remittitur, arguing, among other things, that he was entitled to presidential immunity, that the damages were excessive, and that the jury instructions were erroneous. The district court denied these motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the president had waived any claim to absolute presidential immunity by failing to timely assert it, and that the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Trump v. United States did not alter this conclusion. The court also found no error in the district court’s application of issue preclusion, evidentiary rulings, or jury instructions, and concluded that the damages awarded were reasonable and not excessive. The judgment in favor of the accuser was affirmed in full. View "Carroll v. Trump" on Justia Law

The plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco, seeking $5,000,000 in damages for injuries sustained after falling from a scooter that struck a pothole. During discovery, the City sought information about the plaintiff’s intoxication at the time of the incident. The plaintiff’s counsel failed to provide timely and complete responses to certain form interrogatories related to requests for admission about intoxication, despite repeated requests and meet and confer efforts by the City. Additionally, during an independent medical examination, observers chosen by the plaintiff’s attorney interfered with the process, preventing the examining doctor from completing the evaluation.The Superior Court of San Francisco City and County addressed two discovery disputes. First, it granted the City’s motion to compel responses to the interrogatories and imposed a $6,500 sanction against the plaintiff’s counsel for failing to provide timely, code-compliant responses. Second, it imposed a $1,500 sanction after finding that the plaintiff’s observers had improperly interfered with the medical examination. The parties settled the underlying action, but the plaintiff appealed the sanctions. The City moved to dismiss portions of the appeal, arguing that some orders were not appealable and that the sanctions for the medical exam were below the statutory threshold for appeal.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, granted the City’s motion to partially dismiss the appeal, finding that the orders regarding the protective order and the $1,500 sanction were not appealable. The court affirmed the $6,500 sanction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing it, as the plaintiff’s counsel lacked substantial justification for opposing the motion to compel. The appellate court also imposed $30,000 in sanctions against the plaintiff’s counsel for filing a frivolous appeal and referred the matter to the State Bar. View "Morales v. City of San Francisco" on Justia Law

Steven Meads and Penny Lipking-Meads operated a business as a sole proprietorship before partnering with Jed Driggers in 2010 to expand the business. The parties formed Afterburner, LLC, with the Meadses and Driggers as members, and Driggers as manager. The Meadses contributed assets and goodwill, while Driggers provided capital and expertise. The LLC’s operating agreement included a provision stating that the LLC could only be dissolved by a vote of the members or bankruptcy/insolvency, and that members agreed not to take any other voluntary action to dissolve the LLC, effectively waiving the right to seek judicial dissolution under certain statutory circumstances.A decade later, the Meadses alleged Driggers had improperly diverted business funds and filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Siskiyou County seeking, among other relief, judicial dissolution of the LLC. Driggers and the LLC filed a cross-complaint for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, arguing that the Meadses violated the operating agreement’s waiver provision by seeking dissolution. The Meadses responded with a motion to strike the cross-complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, contending that the waiver provision was unenforceable as contrary to law and public policy. The Superior Court granted the anti-SLAPP motion, finding the cross-complaint arose from protected activity and that Driggers could not show a probability of prevailing.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that, under the Beverly-Killea Limited Liability Company Act, an LLC operating agreement may not waive or vary a member’s statutory right to seek judicial dissolution in the circumstances specified by law. The court concluded that the waiver provision was void and unenforceable, and thus Driggers could not prevail on his cross-complaint. The order striking the cross-complaint was affirmed. View "Meads v. Driggers" on Justia Law

A manufacturer of fasteners and related parts entered into a long-term supply agreement with a home appliance company, which later spun off its outdoor products division into a separate entity. The agreement, intended to make the manufacturer the exclusive supplier for a broad range of parts, quickly became the subject of disputes over its scope and the parties’ obligations. The parties attempted to resolve their disagreements through a settlement memorandum and a consent order, but further conflicts arose regarding price increases, performance, and payment for inventory.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia was first asked to interpret the scope of the parties’ agreements. It found the original contract too indefinite to enforce in its entirety but held that subsequent agreements and the parties’ course of performance clarified which parts were covered. The district court also sanctioned the manufacturer for discovery violations, specifically for failing to produce product-level cost data, and struck its lost profits claim. The court denied the manufacturer’s motion for sanctions against the defendants for alleged spoliation, finding the motion untimely and the missing evidence irrelevant. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the manufacturer’s price increase claim, finding insufficient evidence to support the requested increases, and denied the manufacturer’s motion to amend its complaint to add a claim for prejudgment interest due to undue delay.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed each of the manufacturer’s challenges. The court held that the district court properly interpreted the scope of the agreements, did not abuse its discretion in imposing or denying discovery sanctions, correctly granted summary judgment on the price increase claim, and appropriately excluded certain evidence at trial. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed all orders and the final judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Whitesell Corporation v. Husqvarna Outdoor Products, Inc." on Justia Law

An employee suffered a severe hand injury, including the amputation of a finger, while operating a table saw without a safety guard at work. After receiving some worker’s compensation benefits, the employee filed a civil tort action against the employer, alleging that the employer’s requirement to use the saw without a guard constituted “willful or unprovoked physical aggression,” which, under Idaho law, would allow a lawsuit outside the worker’s compensation system. The employer did not respond to the lawsuit, and the employee obtained a default judgment for damages.Several months later, the employer moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the employee’s worker’s compensation claim had been filed first. The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District agreed, stayed enforcement of the default judgment, and directed the parties to seek a determination from the Idaho Industrial Commission on whether the “willful or unprovoked physical aggression” exception applied. The Commission concluded that the exception did not apply, and the district court then set aside the default judgment and dismissed the civil action.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho held that the district court erred by deferring to the Commission on the applicability of the statutory exception and by setting aside the default judgment. The Supreme Court clarified that district courts have concurrent subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether the exception to the exclusive remedy rule applies, even if a worker’s compensation claim was filed first, unless the Commission has already decided the issue. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision, vacated the Commission’s findings, and remanded with instructions to reenter the default judgment in favor of the employee. View "Tyler v. Masterpiece Floors, Inc." on Justia Law

A civilian employee of the Defense Logistics Agency in Hawaii, who had served in the National Guard and developed post-traumatic stress disorder, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. After a series of workplace incidents, the agency suspended him indefinitely, citing concerns about his access to sensitive information. The employee claimed that the agency failed to provide reasonable accommodations and improperly deemed him a direct threat.The employee filed an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint, which eventually led to a final agency decision (FAD) against him. The agency transmitted the FAD and related documents electronically using a secure system, but made several errors in providing the necessary passphrase to decrypt the document. As a result, the employee’s attorney was unable to access the FAD for several weeks, despite repeated requests for assistance and clarification. The attorney finally received an accessible, decrypted copy of the FAD by email on December 5, 2022. The employee filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 88 days later. The district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary of Defense, finding the complaint untimely because it was not filed within 90 days of the initial electronic transmission, and denied equitable tolling.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. The court held that the 90-day limitations period for filing suit under the Rehabilitation Act did not begin until the attorney received effective notice of the agency’s decision, which occurred when he received the decrypted FAD on December 5. Alternatively, the court held that equitable tolling was warranted because the attorney diligently sought access to the FAD and was prevented by extraordinary circumstances. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits. View "ASUNCION V. HEGSETH" on Justia Law

Two individuals applied for jobs at a retail liquor store chain in Washington after a new state law required employers to include wage and benefit information in all job postings. Both applicants submitted their applications through a third-party website, Indeed.com, where the postings did not include the required pay information. One of the applicants also interviewed in person and discussed pay with the store manager but ultimately declined a job offer. Both individuals then filed a class action lawsuit, seeking statutory damages for the employer’s failure to comply with the disclosure requirements.The case was initially brought in King County, Washington. The employer argued that the plaintiffs were not the type of “job applicants” the law was intended to protect, asserting that only those with a genuine or “bona fide” interest in the job should be eligible for remedies. The parties disagreed on the meaning of “job applicant” under the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA). The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, faced with this dispute, certified a question to the Washington Supreme Court, asking what a plaintiff must prove to be considered a “job applicant” under the statute.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that, under RCW 49.58.110(4), a person qualifies as a “job applicant” if they apply to a specific job posting, regardless of their subjective intent or whether they are a “bona fide” or “good faith” applicant. The court concluded that the plain language of the statute does not require proof of genuine interest in the position, and that the legislature intentionally omitted such a requirement. The court’s answer clarified that subjective intent is irrelevant for eligibility to seek remedies under the EPOA. View "Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC" on Justia Law