Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A mobilehome park owner challenged the constitutionality of a California statute that limits annual rent increases for certain mobilehome parks located within the jurisdictions of two or more incorporated cities. The owner argued that the statute is facially unconstitutional because it lacks a procedural mechanism allowing property owners to seek rent increases above the statutory cap to ensure a fair return, which the owner claimed is required by the California and U.S. Constitutions. The owner asserted that the absence of such a mechanism results in a violation of due process, equal protection, and the prohibition against uncompensated takings.The Superior Court of Orange County granted the owner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the statute’s failure to provide a process for seeking exceptions to the rent cap violated due process and rendered the statute unconstitutional. The court rejected the owner’s takings argument but concluded that the legal issue was dispositive and denied the State’s request for leave to amend its answer. Judgment was entered in favor of the owner, and the State appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The appellate court held that the owner failed to establish that the statute is facially unconstitutional, as the relevant legal precedents do not require a fair return adjustment mechanism in every rent control law. The court also found that the State’s general denial in its answer placed the owner’s standing at issue, precluding judgment on the pleadings. The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the absence of a fair return adjustment mechanism does not, by itself, render the statute facially unconstitutional, and that the State’s answer raised material issues that should have prevented judgment on the pleadings. View "Anaheim Mobile Estates v. State" on Justia Law

Two minor plaintiffs attended a four-day overnight science camp operated by a private entity and organized by their public school district. After returning home, they and their parents alleged that, during the camp, they were exposed to discussions and lessons about gender identity, including being introduced to counselors who used “they/them” pronouns and being asked to state their own preferred pronouns. The plaintiffs also claimed they were not allowed to contact their parents to discuss these matters due to a camp policy prohibiting calls home. They asserted that these experiences caused them severe emotional distress and initiated professional therapy.The plaintiffs filed suit in the Superior Court of Orange County, asserting claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) against both the camp operator and the school district. The camp operator responded with a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16), arguing that the claims arose from protected speech on matters of public interest—specifically, gender identity discussions. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that the claims were not based on protected activity but rather on the lack of disclosure to parents and the prohibition on contacting them. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees, finding the anti-SLAPP motion was not frivolous.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, held that the trial court erred in denying the anti-SLAPP motion in its entirety. The appellate court found that the IIED and NIED claims, to the extent they were based on exposure to gender identity discussions, arose from protected activity and lacked minimal merit, both factually and legally, under California public policy. However, claims based solely on the prohibition of calls home or sleeping arrangements did not arise from protected activity and could proceed. The order was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. View "Sandoval v. Pali Institute" on Justia Law

A property owner purchased a lot in a Wyoming subdivision governed by two homeowners’ associations, each enforcing its own set of covenants. The owner sought to demolish an existing structure and build a new residence with an attached hangar, submitting construction plans for approval as required. Disputes arose over whether his application was complete and whether the associations unreasonably delayed or withheld approval, resulting in increased construction costs due to inflation. Complicating matters, one association (AVR I) had been dissolved years earlier, but its board continued to act as if it existed, later forming a new entity (AVR II) that purported to enforce covenants recorded after AVR I’s dissolution but before AVR II’s formal creation.The property owner initially sued AVR I, believing it to be the proper party, and later sued the other association, AAA. During discovery, he learned that AVR I had been defunct and that AVR II was the actual entity acting as the homeowners’ association. He moved to amend his complaint to add AVR II and assert new claims, including that the covenants were invalid. The District Court of Lincoln County denied the motion to amend, finding the amendments would be futile, and granted summary judgment to AVR I, reasoning that the covenants automatically approved the owner’s plans by default and any delay was self-imposed.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and held that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint. The Supreme Court found that the proposed claims against AVR II were not futile, as there were unresolved factual and legal questions regarding the validity and enforceability of the covenants and AVR II’s authority. The court also held that summary judgment for AVR I was premature. The orders denying amendment and granting summary judgment were reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Conger v. AVR Homeowner's Association, Inc." on Justia Law

Several individuals with developmental disabilities, along with Disability Rights New York (DRNY), an advocacy organization, alleged that New York State agencies responsible for services to people with developmental disabilities caused them to remain in restrictive institutional settings for extended periods, despite being eligible for community-based residential placements. The individual plaintiffs claimed they waited from nine months to six years for such placements, resulting in physical and psychological harm. DRNY, as the state’s designated Protection and Advocacy System, joined the suit, asserting authority to represent the interests of individuals with disabilities under federal law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York first addressed the defendants’ motion to dismiss DRNY’s claims for lack of standing, agreeing that DRNY had not suffered an injury in fact and rejecting its argument that federal statutes conferred “congressionally authorized representational standing.” The district court also dismissed the individual plaintiffs’ claims as moot, based on pre-motion letters from the defendants indicating that all individual plaintiffs had since been moved out of institutional facilities. Additionally, the court denied a motion by other individuals seeking to intervene as plaintiffs, finding the motion untimely.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of DRNY’s claims, holding that DRNY lacked standing because it had not suffered a concrete injury and that Congress could not override Article III’s standing requirements by statute. The Second Circuit also affirmed the denial of the motion to intervene, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s timeliness determination. However, the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of the individual plaintiffs’ claims as moot, holding that the district court erred by dismissing those claims based solely on pre-motion letters without full briefing or a hearing. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the individual plaintiffs’ claims. View "A.H. v. N.Y. State Dep't of Health" on Justia Law

Two drivers, McGee and Hudgins, were involved in a road-rage incident that ended with McGee crashing into Green’s vehicle, causing her injuries. Green and her husband sued both drivers. Before filing suit, Green received $100,000 from McGee’s insurer in exchange for a covenant not to execute judgment against McGee. Green’s underinsured motorist (UIM) carrier, Progressive, defended the suit in McGee’s name. The jury found McGee 60% at fault and Hudgins 40% at fault, and determined both acted recklessly, willfully, and wantonly. The jury awarded Green $88,546.78 in actual damages and $35,000 in punitive damages against each defendant.The Circuit Court for Spartanburg County combined the actual and punitive damages for a total of $158,546.78, subtracted the $100,000 payment from McGee’s insurer, and allocated the remaining $58,546.78 between McGee and Hudgins based on their respective percentages of fault. On appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals altered the setoff calculation, allocating the $100,000 payment first to McGee’s share, then applying any remainder to Hudgins’ share, resulting in a net judgment of $58,546.78 against Hudgins and $0 against McGee.The Supreme Court of South Carolina reviewed the setoff calculation. It held that, because the jury found both defendants acted recklessly, willfully, and wantonly, joint and several liability applied to the actual damages, making the percentage allocation of fault irrelevant. The court further held that the $100,000 payment could only be set off against the actual damages, not the punitive damages, as punitive damages are not for the “same injury.” The court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding Green is entitled to a net judgment of $23,546.78 against McGee and $35,000 against Hudgins, and remanded for entry of judgment in those amounts. View "Green v. McGee" on Justia Law

Kevin Rhodes, a former employee of the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission, was terminated in December 2019 following an investigation into allegations of workplace misconduct, including the use of a racial slur. Rhodes filed grievances about his treatment during the investigation and, after his termination, brought charges of discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights. He subsequently received notices of right to sue and filed a lawsuit in circuit court alleging sex discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under the Missouri Human Rights Act.A jury in the Circuit Court of Jackson County found in favor of the commission on the sex discrimination claim but ruled for Rhodes on his retaliation and hostile work environment claims, awarding him various damages. The circuit court applied a statutory damages cap and entered judgment accordingly. The commission moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the circuit court denied. Both parties appealed: Rhodes challenged the constitutionality of the damages cap, while the commission argued that Rhodes had not made a submissible case. The case was transferred to the Supreme Court of Missouri due to the constitutional issues raised.The Supreme Court of Missouri determined that the circuit court’s judgment was not final because it failed to address Rhodes’s requests for equitable relief and prejudgment interest. The court explained that a final judgment must dispose of all claims and forms of relief sought. Because the judgment did not resolve all aspects of Rhodes’s claims, the Supreme Court of Missouri dismissed the appeal for lack of a final judgment, declining to address the merits of the parties’ arguments. View "Rhodes v. Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission" on Justia Law

After Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment in November 2024 protecting the right to make decisions about reproductive healthcare, Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Jackson County. The organization sought a declaration that various state abortion laws and regulations were unconstitutional under the new amendment and requested a preliminary injunction to prevent their enforcement while the case was pending. The circuit court initially granted a preliminary injunction enjoining several abortion-related statutes and regulations, and later expanded the injunction to include additional licensing requirements after a motion for reconsideration.The State of Missouri challenged the preliminary injunction, arguing that the circuit court applied the wrong legal standard. The Supreme Court of Missouri issued a peremptory writ directing the circuit court to vacate its orders and reconsider the injunction under a more rigorous standard, requiring a threshold finding that the party seeking the injunction is likely to prevail on the merits. The circuit court complied, reevaluated the request, and again issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the same statutes and regulations. The State then appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Missouri, raising multiple points of error and seeking a stay and expedited review.The Supreme Court of Missouri determined that it lacked exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the appeal because the circuit court had not yet ruled on the constitutional validity of the challenged statutes. The Court explained that its exclusive jurisdiction is only invoked when a claim that a statute is unconstitutional has been properly raised, preserved, and ruled upon in the lower court. Since the appeal concerned only the issuance of a preliminary injunction and not a final determination on the statutes’ validity, the Supreme Court of Missouri transferred the case to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, for further proceedings. View "Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains v. State" on Justia Law

A group of institutional investors brought a class action lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company and several of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws after the company’s share price dropped significantly following the rejection of a takeover bid and subsequent negative financial disclosures. One large investor, Sculptor, intended to pursue its own individual lawsuit rather than participate in the class action. The District Court certified the class and issued a notice specifying the procedure and deadline for class members to opt out. Although Sculptor intended to opt out, its counsel failed to submit the required exclusion request by the deadline. Both Sculptor and the company proceeded for years as if Sculptor had opted out, litigating the individual action and treating Sculptor as an opt-out plaintiff.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey later approved a class settlement, which prompted the discovery that Sculptor had never formally opted out. Sculptor then sought to be excluded from the class after the deadline, arguing that its conduct showed a reasonable intent to opt out, that its failure was due to excusable neglect, and that the class notice was inadequate. The District Court rejected these arguments, finding that only compliance with the court’s specified opt-out procedure sufficed, that Sculptor’s neglect was not excusable under the relevant legal standard, and that the notice met due process requirements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The Third Circuit held that a class member must follow the opt-out procedures established by the district court under Rule 23; a mere “reasonable indication” of intent to opt out is insufficient. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying Sculptor’s late opt-out request and concluded that the class notice satisfied due process. View "Perrigo Institutional Investor Group v. Papa" on Justia Law

A Luxembourg-based investment fund and its former General Partner became embroiled in a complex dispute following a contentious split among the fund’s founders. The fund, originally managed by Novalpina Capital Partners I GP S.À.R.L. (Novalpina), saw its General Partner position transferred to Treo NOAL GP S.à.r.l. (Treo) after a vote by limited partners, including the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund (OPERF). The fund’s structure involved multiple entities and significant investments, with allegations of improper conduct and maneuvers by both sides during the transition. Novalpina and Treo subsequently initiated several lawsuits in Luxembourg, including actions over control of the fund and claims for financial entitlements.Novalpina filed an ex parte petition in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, seeking discovery from Oregon officials for use in foreign proceedings, specifically the Veto Right Litigation and a contemplated fraud claim. Treo, Langdon, and Read intervened, and the district court granted the petition, finding statutory and discretionary factors favored Novalpina. The parties negotiated a protective order, which allowed use of the documents in litigation related to the events described in the petition. After Novalpina used the documents in additional foreign proceedings, Treo moved for reconsideration of the discovery grant and to modify the protective order, arguing misuse and misrepresentation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of Treo’s motions. The Ninth Circuit held that documents produced under § 1782 for use in specified foreign proceedings may be used in other proceedings unless the district court orders otherwise. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Treo’s motion for reconsideration or its request to modify the protective order, affirming the district court’s rulings. View "NOVALPINA CAPITAL PARTNERS I GP S.A.R.L V. READ" on Justia Law

Quintara Biosciences, Inc. and Ruifeng Biztech, Inc. are both DNA-sequencing-analysis companies that had a business relationship from 2013 to 2019. In 2019, the relationship deteriorated, with Quintara alleging that Ruifeng locked it out of its office, took its equipment, and hired away its employees. Quintara then filed suit, asserting a claim under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), alleging misappropriation of nine specific trade secrets, including customer and vendor databases, marketing plans, and proprietary technology.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, referencing a California state law rule, ordered Quintara to disclose its alleged trade secrets with “reasonable particularity” at the outset of discovery. Dissatisfied with the specificity of Quintara’s disclosures, Ruifeng moved to strike most of the trade secrets under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). The district court granted the motion, striking all but two of the trade secrets and effectively dismissing Quintara’s claims as to the others. The case proceeded to trial on the remaining trade secrets, and a jury found in favor of Ruifeng.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s actions. The appellate court held that the district court abused its discretion by striking Quintara’s trade secrets at the discovery stage. The Ninth Circuit clarified that, under the DTSA, whether a trade secret is identified with sufficient particularity is a question of fact to be resolved at summary judgment or trial, not at the outset of discovery. The court reversed the district court’s order striking the trade secrets, affirmed the denial of a mistrial, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The main holding is that DTSA claims should not be dismissed at the discovery stage for lack of particularity except in extreme circumstances, and Rule 12(f) does not authorize striking trade secrets in this context. View "QUINTARA BIOSCIENCES, INC. V. RUIFENG BIZTECH, INC." on Justia Law