Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A former student at the University of Southern Indiana was accused of sexual assault during the 2020–21 academic year. After a hearing, a university panel found the alleged victim’s account more credible than the student’s, noting her consistency over time, and concluded that the student committed rape and forcible fondling. The student was suspended for three semesters and did not return to the university. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against the university and other defendants, alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title IX, deprivation of due process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. During discovery, the student learned of undisclosed records that suggested his account may have been consistent over time, contrary to the panel’s finding.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. In the course of the litigation, a magistrate judge ordered the student to proceed using his real name, not a pseudonym. The student objected, but the district judge overruled the objection, though the district court stayed its order pending this appeal. The student filed multiple appeals, which were consolidated for argument.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the student’s use of a pseudonym. The court reaffirmed the strong presumption that adult parties litigate under their real names in federal court and found that the student did not present sufficient evidence of a substantial risk of physical harm or retaliation to justify use of a pseudonym. The court declined to broaden the standard to include mental health risks or to consider the merits of the underlying claims in deciding the pseudonym issue. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. View "Doe v University of Southern Indiana" on Justia Law

In this matter, a member of the University of Alabama’s men’s basketball team, Kai Spears, brought suit against The New York Times Company after it published articles erroneously identifying him as the unidentified passenger in a car at the scene of a high-profile shooting. The Times based its reporting on information from two confidential sources. Spears, who was not in the car, alleges that The Times failed to use reasonable care in publishing false and damaging statements about him. During litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Spears sought discovery to uncover the identities of the sources and related information. The Times resisted, invoking Alabama’s “shield statute,” which protects journalists from being compelled to reveal confidential sources.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Alabama concerning the scope of the state’s shield statute. The first question asked whether the statute protects the identity of a source when information is published online. However, as Spears conceded that the print publication of the article triggered the statute’s application, the Supreme Court of Alabama declined to answer this question, finding it irrelevant to the case.The Supreme Court of Alabama addressed the second certified question, which asked whether the shield statute protects any and all information that could reasonably lead to the identification of a protected source. The Court held that Alabama’s shield statute does not extend so broadly. Instead, it protects only information that would inevitably reveal the identity of a confidential source. Thus, information that could merely “reasonably lead” to the identification of a source is not covered. The Court declined to expand the statute’s protections beyond its plain language and expressly limited the privilege to “source-identifying” information whose disclosure would make identifying the source unavoidable. View "The New York Times Company v. Spears" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, three organizations representing millions of Americans, challenged the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) decision to grant personnel from the newly created U.S. DOGE Service access to non-anonymized, highly sensitive personal information held by the SSA. This access was authorized following an executive order charging DOGE with improving government technology. Career officials at the SSA resigned in protest, and a new acting administrator approved DOGE’s access. The plaintiffs argued that merely providing this access, regardless of actual misuse or disclosure, was itself unlawful and an intrusion upon the privacy of their members.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland conducted extensive hearings and granted a preliminary injunction blocking DOGE’s access to the data. The Supreme Court subsequently stayed this injunction, pending appellate and possible further Supreme Court review. The case came before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had Article III standing, as the unauthorized access to their sensitive information closely resembled the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion. However, the Fourth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs had not established that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, as required by the second factor of the Winter test for preliminary injunctions. The court reasoned that monetary damages and reparative permanent injunctions were potentially available remedies, and the record did not show that new or additional irreparable harm would occur during the litigation. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The main holding is that the preliminary injunction was vacated because the plaintiffs did not show likely irreparable harm. View "American Federation of State, County and Municipal v. Social Security Administration" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization, after being represented by several law firms over multiple years in a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, was awarded attorneys’ fees by the district court under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The total fee award was almost $789,000. The various law firms that had represented the nonprofit at different times—specifically, a set of former attorneys and the Bopp Law Firm—disputed how much each was entitled to from the award. Both the former attorneys and Bopp asserted they had an equitable charging lien entitling them to direct payment from the fee award, rather than requiring payment first be made to the client.After the resolution of the underlying claims, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia found that the former attorneys had a valid charging lien but denied Bopp’s motion to enforce its own lien. The district court reasoned, based on Indiana law (per a choice-of-law provision in Bopp's fee agreement), that Bopp had to show an agreement with the client that its compensation would come from the fund itself. The court concluded Bopp failed to establish such an agreement and thus did not have a valid lien.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the district court applied the wrong legal standard under Indiana law. Indiana law recognizes two independent ways an attorney may establish an equitable charging lien: either by securing the fund for the client or by an agreement with the client to be paid from the fund. The Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Bopp satisfied either prong and for potential resolution of lien priority and the calculation of amounts owed. View "True the Vote, Inc. v. IRS" on Justia Law

An Irish company leased two airplanes to an Indian airline under agreements designating English courts as the forum for resolving disputes. After the airline failed to keep up with lease payments, the lessor sued in England and secured a monetary judgment. Seeking to enforce that judgment in Washington, the lessor filed a recognition action in King County Superior Court, claiming the airline had interests in personal property within the state but did not identify specific assets.The airline challenged the action in King County Superior Court, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction because it had no contacts, assets, or business in Washington. The superior court denied the airline’s motion to dismiss, holding that jurisdiction was not required to recognize a foreign-country judgment under Washington’s Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act. The court ultimately entered summary judgment recognizing the English judgment and ordering payment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that neither statute nor constitutional law required the creditor to show personal jurisdiction or a property nexus for recognition of such a judgment.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington granted review and reversed the lower courts. The court held that, under chapter 6.40A RCW, a judgment creditor must establish either general or specific jurisdiction over the debtor or, in the absence of such jurisdiction, demonstrate that the debtor has property within Washington before a foreign-country money judgment may be recognized. The court found that recognition actions under the Act are not purely ministerial and require adjudicative jurisdiction. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the debtor has property in Washington sufficient to support jurisdiction. View "Alterna Aircraft V B Ltd. v. SpiceJet Ltd." on Justia Law

A man filed suit in 2017 against three individuals and a club, alleging that he was sexually abused as a child between 1993 and 2000. He claimed that the abuse caused him numerous injuries but asserted that he did not learn of the connection between the abuse and his injuries until 2014, after receiving psychotherapy. The defendants argued that his claims were barred by the statute of limitations, contending that he was aware of the connection between the abuse and his injuries before reaching adulthood, based on deposition testimony and documents such as statements the plaintiff made to police.The Circuit Court of Sussex County considered deposition transcripts and documentary evidence submitted by the parties, with no live testimony presented at the hearing. The circuit court found that the plaintiff knew of the causal relationship between the abuse and his injuries before he reached the age of majority in 2002. Thus, the court determined that his claims accrued when he became an adult, and were barred by the two-year statute of limitations that expired in 2004. The court granted the defendants’ pleas in bar, dismissing the claims.The Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed this decision, holding that, since only documentary evidence had been presented, the circuit court’s factual findings were not entitled to deference. It reviewed the matter de novo, found disputed material facts, and concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate. On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia held that the Court of Appeals applied the wrong standard of review. The Supreme Court clarified that factual findings based on deposition evidence are entitled to substantial deference unless plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the circuit court’s judgment, holding that the claims were time-barred. View "Stevens v. Jurnigan" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs held individual retirement accounts (IRAs) for which Capital One acted as custodian. Capital One chose to resign as custodian and notified the plaintiffs that, unless they directed otherwise, their IRA funds would be transferred to Inspira Financial Trust (formerly Millennium Trust Company). Plaintiffs did not act to select a different custodian or investment option. After the funds were transferred, Inspira placed them in a “sweeps” account that paid a low annual interest rate—less than Inspira’s management fees. Plaintiffs complained that both Capital One and Inspira breached their contractual duties by causing their funds to earn little or no net return, though they acknowledged Inspira is a reputable institution.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, the judge compelled arbitration of the claims against Inspira due to an arbitration agreement. The court then dismissed the claims against Capital One on the merits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), relying in part on an exculpatory clause in the contract. Plaintiffs appealed the portion of the judgment relating to Capital One, under Rule 54(b).The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court held that Capital One did not breach its contractual obligations, even when interpreting the contract as plaintiffs urged. The court found that Capital One’s actions—providing ample notice and allowing plaintiffs to choose their own custodian or investment vehicle—complied with its duties, including any obligations of good faith and fair dealing under applicable state law. The court further noted that plaintiffs were not prevented from learning about or choosing better investment options. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the claims against Capital One. View "Hewitt v Capital One Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Branch Metrics, Inc. brought an antitrust action against Google, LLC, alleging violations of the Sherman Act based on documents uncovered in earlier litigation brought by the United States against Google. Branch Metrics claimed Google maintained monopoly power in online search and search advertising markets, using exclusive agreements that caused anticompetitive harm. The suit was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, although most relevant witnesses and evidence were located in California.Google responded by requesting a transfer of venue to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), arguing that it was clearly more convenient for parties and witnesses and that the sources of proof were located there. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas permitted venue discovery but ultimately denied Google’s motion to transfer. The court found that certain private interest factors slightly favored transfer, while one public interest factor—administrative difficulties stemming from court congestion—weighed against transfer, and the rest of the factors were neutral.On mandamus review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the district court misapplied the law by placing undue weight on the court congestion factor, which Fifth Circuit precedent considers speculative and non-dispositive. The appellate court held that the district court erred by allowing that single factor to override all other factors, contrary to circuit authority. The Fifth Circuit also rejected Branch Metrics’ argument that the Clayton Act insulated its choice of venue from transfer. The court granted Google’s petition for a writ of mandamus and ordered the case transferred to the Northern District of California. View "In Re: Google" on Justia Law

A Canadian investment company provided loans to Mexican companies owned by a businessman, securing these loans with mortgages and promissory notes. When the Mexican companies defaulted, the investor attempted to recover its funds through negotiations and litigation in Mexico. The investor alleged that a fraudulent scheme, orchestrated by the businessman, led to a forged settlement used in Mexican court to void the loans. After Mexican courts did not provide relief, the investor initiated arbitration against Mexico under NAFTA, claiming Mexico failed to provide the protections required for foreign investments.The arbitral tribunal, seated in Washington, D.C., found that only the mortgages—not the promissory notes—qualified as protected “investments” under NAFTA. The tribunal concluded that Mexico had breached its obligations under Article 1105(1) by failing to provide fair and equitable treatment to the investor’s qualifying investments, awarding $47 million in compensation to the investor. Mexico then petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to vacate the award, arguing the arbitrators exceeded their authority and disregarded the law. The district court rejected these arguments, confirming the award. Separately, the businessman sought to intervene in the proceedings, claiming his interests were harmed, but the district court denied intervention.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the arbitral tribunal did not exceed its powers, as it at least arguably interpreted the relevant treaty provisions, and did not act in manifest disregard of the law. The appellate court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the businessman’s motion to intervene, finding Mexico adequately represented his interests. The court affirmed the district court’s order in full. View "United Mexican States v. Lion Mexico Consolidated L.P." on Justia Law

A group of shareholders brought a class action against a telecommunications company and its executives, alleging violations of securities laws related to the company’s merger with another entity. The plaintiffs claimed that the registration statement and prospectus for the merger contained false statements and omitted material facts about illegal billing practices known as “cramming,” which they argued were widespread, known to senior management, and impacted the company’s financial performance. The amended complaint incorporated allegations and statements made by confidential witnesses and public filings from related lawsuits, as well as affidavits from other cases, all supporting the claim of pervasive cramming practices.Initially, the Boulder County District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to plead material misrepresentations or omissions with particularity and denied leave to amend. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed in part but reversed the denial of leave to amend the omissions claim based on the cramming theory, instructing that any borrowed allegations must be pleaded as facts after reasonable inquiry as required by C.R.C.P. 11. After the plaintiff amended the complaint, the district court dismissed it again, concluding that the plaintiff’s counsel had not satisfied the requirement to conduct a reasonable inquiry, as the complaint relied on allegations from other lawsuits without direct verification from the original sources or witnesses.The Colorado Supreme Court, en banc, reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal. The Supreme Court held that under C.R.C.P. 11(a), counsel must conduct a sufficient investigation to support allegations, at least on information and belief, but the extent of the required investigation is fact-dependent. Copying allegations from related complaints does not alone violate Rule 11 provided counsel’s inquiry is objectively reasonable in context. The Court found that the plaintiff’s counsel had met this standard and affirmed the judgment below. View "CenturyLink, Inc. v. Houser" on Justia Law