Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation and Venequip Machinery Sales Corporation Miami entered into an inventory loan agreement governed by Tennessee law, under which Venequip Miami could borrow funds by executing promissory notes. Venequip Miami executed six such notes, totaling approximately $4.77 million. The agreement specified that default would occur if Venequip Miami failed to repay principal or interest when due, or if there was a material adverse change in its financial condition. After a related affiliate defaulted on a separate loan in Curaçao, Caterpillar Financial declared an event of default under the inventory loan agreement, accelerated the debt, and demanded repayment. Venequip Miami did not repay, and Caterpillar Financial alleged that the outstanding amount exceeded $10 million.Caterpillar Financial filed a breach of contract suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Venequip Miami moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Caterpillar Financial failed to specify which provision of the inventory loan agreement was breached. The district court agreed, finding the complaint insufficient because it did not identify the specific provision breached among several possible events of default, and dismissed the case with prejudice. Caterpillar Financial’s subsequent motion to amend the judgment and file an amended complaint was denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that under federal pleading standards, a breach of contract plaintiff is not required to identify the specific contractual provision breached, but must plausibly allege nonperformance. The court found that Caterpillar Financial’s complaint sufficiently alleged the existence of a contract, nonperformance by Venequip Miami, and resulting damages. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Caterpillar Financial Services Corp. v. Venequip Machinery Sales Corp." on Justia Law

A website visitor in Pennsylvania interacted with a retail website that used session replay code provided by a third party to record her mouse movements, clicks, and keystrokes. The visitor did not enter any sensitive or personal information during her session. She later brought a putative class action against the website operator, alleging that the use of session replay code constituted intrusion upon seclusion and violated the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA).The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing because she did not allege a concrete injury. The court reasoned that the mere recording of her website activity, which did not include any personal or sensitive information, was not analogous to harms traditionally recognized at common law, such as disclosure of private information or intrusion upon seclusion. The court also found that amendment would be futile.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and agreed that the plaintiff failed to allege a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing. The Third Circuit held that the alleged harm was not closely related to the traditional privacy torts of disclosure of private information or intrusion upon seclusion, as the information recorded was neither sensitive nor publicly disclosed, and there was no intrusion into the plaintiff’s solitude or private affairs. The court also clarified that a statutory violation alone does not automatically confer standing without a concrete harm. However, the Third Circuit determined that the District Court erred in dismissing the complaint with prejudice and modified the order to a dismissal without prejudice, affirming the order as modified. View "Cook v. GameStop, Inc." on Justia Law

A citizen of the United Kingdom, who currently resides in Japan, underwent surgery in the United Kingdom to have a medical device implanted. The device was manufactured by a Minnesota-based company, which is a subsidiary of a New Jersey-based parent company. After the device allegedly failed, the plaintiff traveled to Colorado for removal and replacement of the device, but continued to experience problems. He later received additional medical care in Thailand. Dissatisfied with the device’s performance, he filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, asserting negligence and strict liability claims against both the manufacturer and its parent company.The defendants did not contest jurisdiction or venue in Minnesota, but moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, arguing that the United Kingdom was a more appropriate forum. The district court agreed, reasoning that most relevant events and evidence were outside Minnesota, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court also denied the plaintiff’s request to amend his complaint to add more facts connecting the case to Minnesota, concluding that such an amendment would be futile. The plaintiff’s subsequent request to file a motion for reconsideration was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the district court abused its discretion. The appellate court held that the district court failed to properly hold the defendants to their burden of persuasion on all elements of the forum non conveniens analysis and erred by automatically weighing all contacts outside Minnesota in favor of the United Kingdom, rather than considering contacts with the entire United States. The Eighth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for a new forum non conveniens analysis, instructing the district court to apply the correct legal standards and properly weigh the relevant factors. View "Dibble v. Torax Medical, Inc." on Justia Law

In January 2020, Salve Chipola attended a high school basketball game where Sean Flannery made statements to a school official accusing Chipola of being a drug dealer and providing drugs and alcohol to students. As a result, Chipola was later banned from school grounds and questioned by a police officer about these allegations, which he denied. Flannery admitted to making the statements. Nearly two years after the incident, Chipola filed a lawsuit against Flannery for false light invasion of privacy, alleging that the false statements harmed his reputation and caused emotional distress.The Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, granted Flannery’s motion to dismiss, finding that Chipola’s claim was time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations for defamation, as established in Swan v. Boardwalk Regency Corp. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, reasoning that false light claims are essentially akin to defamation and thus subject to the same one-year limitations period. The court relied on prior case law, including Rumbauskas v. Cantor, which recognized the similarities between false light and defamation claims.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case to resolve whether the statute of limitations for false light invasion of privacy should be one year, as for defamation, or two years, as for personal injury. The Court held that the one-year statute of limitations for defamation claims also applies to false light claims. The Court reasoned that the conduct and injuries underlying both torts are closely aligned, and applying a longer limitations period to false light would undermine legislative intent and free speech protections. The judgment of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "Chipola v. Flannery" on Justia Law

Talisker Finance, LLC and its affiliates defaulted on a $150 million loan secured by real property, which they had borrowed to develop parcels in Utah. After several loan modifications and assignments, the lenders—Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Midtown Acquisitions L.P.—foreclosed on the collateral and purchased it at two sheriff’s sales, where they were the only bidders. The sale proceeds did not satisfy the debt, and the lenders continued to pursue the deficiency. Later, Talisker discovered information suggesting that the lenders, in coordination with a court-appointed receiver, may have taken actions to depress the sale price, including deterring potential bidders and bundling properties in a way that made them less attractive.Talisker filed suit in the Third District Court, Summit County, seeking equitable relief from the deficiency judgments, alleging that the lenders’ conduct during the foreclosure process violated Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 69B(d) and constituted fraud or grossly inequitable conduct. The lenders moved to dismiss, arguing that Talisker had broadly waived any rights or defenses related to the foreclosure process in the loan documents. The district court accepted Talisker’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but concluded that the waivers were enforceable and covered the rights Talisker sought to assert, including those under Rule 69B(d). The court found no unlawful irregularity in the sales and dismissed the complaint.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that Talisker’s broad and explicit waivers in the loan documents encompassed all rights and defenses related to the foreclosure sales, including the right to challenge the method of sale or seek equitable relief based on alleged unfairness or irregularities. The court concluded that, regardless of the alleged conduct, Talisker had contractually relinquished any basis for relief. View "TALISKER PARTNERSHIP v. MIDTOWN ACQUISITIONS" on Justia Law

A federal prisoner diagnosed with a painful uterine fibroid sought medical treatment, including surgery, while incarcerated. Despite recommendations from two outside physicians for surgical intervention, prison medical staff repeatedly denied her requests for surgery. The prisoner followed the Bureau of Prisons’ four-step administrative grievance process: she attempted informal resolution, filed a formal written request, appealed to the regional director, and then submitted a final appeal (BP-11 form) to the Bureau’s General Counsel. Although she properly completed and mailed the BP-11 form, prison officials claimed they never received or logged it, and the tracking system showed no record of its receipt.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama initially dismissed her Federal Tort Claims Act claims but allowed her to amend her complaint to pursue Eighth Amendment claims against individual medical staff. After further proceedings, the district court dismissed her amended complaint, concluding that she failed to exhaust administrative remedies because her BP-11 form was never logged as received and because she filed her lawsuit before the General Counsel’s response period had expired.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the prisoner satisfied her obligation to exhaust administrative remedies by properly completing and mailing the BP-11 form, even though prison officials failed to log or process it. The court further held that the administrative remedy process was unavailable to her due to the lack of guidance on how to proceed when officials fail to file a properly submitted grievance, making the process “prohibitively opaque.” The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "McGuire-Mollica v. Griffin" on Justia Law

Several chambers of commerce, including regional and national organizations, brought a lawsuit on behalf of their pharmaceutical-manufacturer members challenging the constitutionality of the Drug Price Negotiation Program established by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. This federal program authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate prices for certain high-expenditure drugs sold to Medicare and Medicaid. Among the plaintiffs’ members were AbbVie Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacyclics LLC, manufacturers of a drug selected for the first round of negotiations. Notably, Pharmacyclics joined the Dayton and Ohio Chambers only after the litigation began, while AbbVie had longstanding membership in several chambers.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio reviewed the case after the government moved to dismiss, arguing that the Dayton Chamber lacked associational standing and that venue was therefore improper. The district court allowed limited discovery and permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Ultimately, the district court dismissed the case, holding that the regional chambers’ purposes were not sufficiently related to the interests at stake in the lawsuit, and thus they lacked associational standing. The court also found that, without standing for the Dayton and Ohio Chambers, venue in the Southern District of Ohio was improper and declined to transfer the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Sixth Circuit held that the interests asserted in the lawsuit were not germane to the purposes of the Dayton, Ohio, or Michigan Chambers, as their regional missions were too remote from the national pharmaceutical issues at stake. The court further concluded that, with no plaintiff residing in the district, venue was improper. The judgment of dismissal for improper venue was therefore affirmed. View "Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

A four-year-old child drowned after wandering unattended from the home where she had been placed under temporary custody by order of the Probate Court. The child’s parents had previously lost guardianship, and the court had vested temporary custody in maternal relatives. To determine whether to grant a full transfer of guardianship, the Probate Court ordered the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to investigate the home and report its findings. DCF submitted its report, recommending the placement, but before the court could hold a hearing on permanent guardianship, the child died. The child’s estate, through her father as administrator, alleged that DCF’s negligence in investigating the placement and in making recommendations to the Probate Court was a proximate cause of the child’s death, and also claimed DCF failed to fulfill independent duties to protect the child from abuse and neglect.After the estate received permission from the Claims Commissioner to sue the state, DCF moved to dismiss the action in the Superior Court, arguing that it was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for actions integral to the judicial process, such as conducting court-ordered investigations and making recommendations. The Superior Court agreed, holding that DCF was protected by absolute quasi-judicial immunity when acting as an arm of the Probate Court, and that the Claims Commissioner could not waive this immunity. The court dismissed the action, finding the complaint’s allegations insufficient to overcome DCF’s immunity.On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the Claims Commissioner’s waiver of sovereign immunity under the relevant statute does not preclude the state from asserting absolute quasi-judicial immunity. However, the Court reversed in part, concluding that some of the estate’s allegations may fall outside the scope of quasi-judicial immunity, particularly those involving DCF’s independent statutory duties. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine which claims, if any, are not barred by quasi-judicial immunity. View "Jamie G. v. Dept. of Children & Families" on Justia Law

Indiana enacted a statute making it a misdemeanor for a person to knowingly or intentionally approach within 25 feet of a law enforcement officer who is lawfully engaged in official duties, after being ordered by the officer to stop approaching. Several media organizations and news outlets challenged this law, arguing that it is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment because it allows police officers too much discretion in deciding when to issue a do-not-approach order, potentially leading to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The plaintiffs asserted that the law chills their newsgathering activities, as journalists often need to approach police officers in public spaces to report on events.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied the State’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing, finding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged injury in fact. The district court then granted a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their Fourteenth Amendment vagueness claim, would suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored an injunction. The court did not address the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims. The State appealed the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing that the law was not unconstitutionally vague and that the plaintiffs lacked standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs had standing and that the case was not moot, even though a second, narrower buffer law had been enacted. The court found that the original buffer law was unconstitutionally vague because it gave law enforcement officers unfettered discretion to decide when to issue a do-not-approach order, thus encouraging arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The court remanded the case for the district court to reconsider the appropriate scope of the injunction in light of recent Supreme Court precedent limiting universal injunctions. View "Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. Rokita" on Justia Law

Monica Richards, a long-time employee in her early fifties, applied for a promotion at Eli Lilly & Company after serving as an interim District Sales Manager. The promotion was instead awarded to a younger, less experienced candidate. Richards filed suit in federal court, alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Massachusetts law. She sought to proceed collectively on behalf of all Eli Lilly employees aged 40 or older who were denied promotions since February 2022, claiming a companywide bias favoring “Early Career Professionals” over older employees.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Richards moved for conditional certification of a collective action and requested that notice be sent to potential opt-in plaintiffs. The parties disputed the appropriate standard for issuing such notice. The district court applied the Lusardi “modest factual showing” standard, declined to consider the employer’s opposing evidence, and granted conditional certification, agreeing to send notice. Recognizing uncertainty in the law, the district court certified the question for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case to clarify the standard for issuing notice in Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and ADEA collective actions. The court held that, before notice may issue, plaintiffs must present evidence raising a material factual dispute as to whether the proposed collective is similarly situated. Both parties’ evidence must be considered, and the district court retains discretion to manage the process, including authorizing limited discovery or narrowing the scope of notice. The court rejected both the lenient Lusardi standard and heightened standards requiring proof by a preponderance of the evidence or a strong likelihood of similarity. The Seventh Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings under the clarified standard. View "Richards v. Eli Lilly & Company" on Justia Law