Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff acquired property in Exeter, Rhode Island, in 1997 and later sought to develop a solar farm on it. To proceed, he needed legal access from a public road. A town map suggested such access via an extension of Estate Drive, but in reality, no road existed there—only undeveloped woods, which the town considered a “paper street.” The plaintiff attempted to clear and gravel the area without town approval, prompting the town to block access and send a cease-and-desist letter. The planning board denied his development application, and the zoning board affirmed. The plaintiff then filed multiple lawsuits, including one seeking a declaration that the disputed area was a public road, and later, claims for due process violations and, after losing on the road status issue, for adverse possession and related theories regarding ownership and access.The Superior Court first denied the town’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in the due process case and then denied the town’s motion to dismiss the adverse possession case. The trial justice reasoned that res judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply because, in her view, the facts and legal theories in the new cases were different from the previously litigated issues, such as whether the area was a public road. She further concluded that the town had acquiesced to separate lawsuits and that Davis was not barred from asserting inconsistent or alternative claims in later litigation.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed both cases on certiorari. The Court held that res judicata barred the plaintiff’s claims because all arose from the same set of facts concerning access to the disputed area and could have been raised in the initial litigation. The Court further concluded that collateral estoppel and judicial estoppel also precluded the plaintiff’s adverse possession and related claims, as key factual issues had already been determined. The Court quashed the Superior Court’s orders and remanded for dismissal of both cases. View "Davis v. Wood Estates, Inc." on Justia Law

Duane Gonder, an inmate serving a lengthy prison sentence following guilty pleas to multiple charges in 2010, filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Arkansas Attorney General. He challenged the constitutionality of Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-54-119(a), which criminalizes furnishing prohibited articles in correctional facilities. Gonder contended that the statute, as interpreted in Laster v. State, 76 Ark. App. 324, 64 S.W.3d 800 (2002), was unconstitutional as applied to him and other inmates who never leave the prison facility, arguing that it violated due process and equal protection. He asserted that he and similarly situated inmates faced a threat of prosecution for actions that, under his reading of the statute, should not apply to them.The Pulaski County Circuit Court, Third Division, dismissed Gonder’s petition without prejudice. The circuit court found that Gonder lacked standing and failed to present a justiciable controversy, and imposed a strike under applicable Arkansas law. The court reasoned that Gonder’s claims were speculative and hypothetical, rather than based on a present injury or sufficient facts to establish an actual controversy. Gonder appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal. The court held that Gonder had not alleged sufficient facts demonstrating standing, as he did not show a present injury or a concrete threat of prosecution under the challenged statute. The court further agreed that no justiciable controversy existed, as Gonder’s claims were speculative and not ripe for judicial determination. As a result, the dismissal without prejudice became a dismissal with prejudice, and Gonder’s motion for a decision based on his brief alone was rendered moot. The imposition of a strike was also affirmed. View "GONDER v. GRIFFIN" on Justia Law

The case involved a medical negligence and wrongful death claim arising from care provided to a resident at a county-owned skilled nursing facility in Nebraska. The plaintiffs, the decedent’s personal representative and surviving spouse, alleged that substandard care by the facility’s staff caused fatal injuries. The suit was initiated against several entities purportedly associated with the facility, but only two remained as defendants after some were dismissed for procedural reasons.After the complaint was filed in the District Court for Merrick County, the primary remaining defendant, identified as Litzenberg Memorial Long Term Care, moved to dismiss the case. The defendant argued that the complaint failed to demonstrate compliance with the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act’s presuit notice requirement, claiming that notice was not properly served on the appropriate official. Before the court ruled on the motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to clarify factual allegations regarding compliance with presuit notice and to correct the defendant’s name. The proposed amendment included details suggesting that the Merrick County clerk was an appropriate recipient for notice, and asserted that the defendant should be estopped from contesting notice due to representations made by the clerk.The district court denied the motion for leave to amend and granted the motion to dismiss, finding the amendment would be futile because the notice had not been properly served. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court determined that under the applicable procedural rule, the plaintiffs were entitled to amend their complaint once as a matter of course prior to any responsive pleading. The court held that filing a motion for leave to amend did not waive this right. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing that the plaintiffs be allowed to amend their complaint. View "Cyboron v. Merrick County" on Justia Law

A former Army specialist was seriously injured in a suicide bombing at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan. The attack was carried out by Ahmad Nayeb, a Taliban operative hired by Fluor Corporation, a military contractor, as part of a program encouraging the hiring of Afghan nationals. The Army’s investigation concluded that Fluor was primarily responsible due to negligent supervision and failure to enforce proper security procedures, including allowing Nayeb to check out tools used in the bombing and to move about the base unsupervised. The plaintiff sued Fluor in federal court in South Carolina, seeking damages under state law for negligent supervision, negligent entrustment, and negligent retention of Nayeb.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina granted summary judgment to Fluor, holding that state-law tort claims were preempted under Fourth Circuit precedent whenever they arose out of combatant activities in a wartime setting. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, adopting a broad “battlefield preemption” doctrine. It reasoned that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s (FTCA) combatant-activities exception, which preserves government immunity for claims arising out of military combatant activities, reflected an intent to bar all tort suits against contractors connected with those activities, regardless of whether the contractor followed or violated military instructions.The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case. The Court held that the Fourth Circuit erred in finding the state-law tort claims preempted where the federal government neither ordered nor authorized the challenged conduct. The Supreme Court clarified that neither the Constitution, federal statutes, nor its precedents support such broad preemption. Preemption applies only if the contractor was following government directives or if there is a significant conflict between federal interests and state law, which was not the case here. View "Hencely v. Fluor Corp." on Justia Law

The case concerns a dispute over the operation of Line 5, a petroleum pipeline owned and operated by Enbridge, which traverses the Straits of Mackinac in Michigan under a 1953 easement granted by the State. In June 2019, the Michigan Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court seeking to stop Enbridge from operating the pipeline, arguing that the easement was void and that continued operation violated state law due to environmental risks. Enbridge was served with the complaint in July 2019 but did not remove the case to federal court within the statutory 30-day deadline. Instead, Enbridge litigated in state court for over a year.Subsequently, in November 2020, the Michigan Governor revoked the easement and initiated a separate state lawsuit with similar claims. Enbridge timely removed the Governor’s case to federal court, where the parties agreed to pause the Attorney General’s case pending resolution. After the District Court in the Governor’s case denied remand, finding federal-question jurisdiction, the Governor dismissed her suit. Thereafter, 887 days after the Attorney General’s complaint was served, Enbridge removed the original state lawsuit to federal court. The Attorney General moved to remand, arguing removal was untimely. The U.S. District Court denied the motion, excusing Enbridge’s late removal on equitable grounds and certified the issue for interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that although the 30-day removal deadline in 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(1) is nonjurisdictional, it is not subject to equitable tolling due to the statute’s text, structure, and context. The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Sixth Circuit’s decision, holding that §1446(b)(1)’s 30-day removal deadline cannot be equitably tolled. As a result, Enbridge’s removal was untimely, and the case must be remanded to Michigan state court. View "Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel" on Justia Law

A commercial fisherman from Erie County, Ohio, who owned a fisheries business, challenged a state rule that amended commercial fishing regulations to exclude seine fishers from receiving yellow perch quotas. The rule, promulgated by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Wildlife, allocated quotas exclusively to trap net fishers and prohibited the transfer of quotas to seine licenses. The fisherman alleged that this rule deprived him of economic value and constituted a taking without compensation, and further brought claims for breach of fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy against both state and federal defendants.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The district court dismissed with prejudice all claims against Ohio and the state officials, holding that there was no protected property interest in the value of a fishing license or uncaught fish under the Takings Clause. The court also found that sovereign immunity barred all claims against the state and its officials, even if the claims otherwise had merit, and determined the state law claims were insufficiently pled. Claims against the federal defendants were dismissed without prejudice for defective service of process.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings de novo. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that sovereign immunity barred the takings and state law claims against Ohio and the state officials, rejecting the appellant’s arguments that these defendants had waived immunity or that recent Supreme Court and Ohio Supreme Court decisions required judicial review of the state rule. However, the appellate court held that because the dismissal was based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the claims against the state defendants should have been dismissed without prejudice. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the federal defendants. The judgment was thus affirmed in part and reversed in part, with instructions to dismiss the state claims without prejudice. View "White's Landing Fisheries, Inc. v. Ohio Dep't of Nat. Res. Div. of Wildlife" on Justia Law

After purchasing a used car in Oklahoma with his then-wife, Alexander Ross divorced and relocated to Michigan, while his ex-wife kept the car in Oklahoma. The couple fell behind on payments, leading their creditor to repossess and sell the vehicle. The creditor retained an Oklahoma law firm, Robinson, Hoover & Fudge, PLLC (“RHF”), to sue both parties for the outstanding balance in Oklahoma state court. After unsuccessful attempts to serve Ross personally, including publishing notice in an Oklahoma newspaper, the court entered a default judgment against him. RHF later learned that Ross was residing and working in Michigan and proceeded to use the Oklahoma judgment to garnish Ross’s wages from his Michigan-based employer, Detroit Diesel.Ross filed suit against RHF in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Michigan’s Regulation of Collection Practices Act (MRCPA). He claimed that RHF unlawfully garnished his Michigan wages without first domesticating the Oklahoma judgment as required by Michigan law. RHF moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion, holding that RHF did not have sufficient contacts with Michigan to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that RHF had purposefully directed its actions at Ross in Michigan with knowledge of his residence and employment there, and that its actions caused harm in Michigan. The court found that both Michigan’s long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause permitted the exercise of personal jurisdiction over RHF. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ross v. Robinson, Hoover & Fudge, PLLC" on Justia Law

An Afghan infant was orphaned and injured during a joint U.S.-Afghan military operation and received emergency care at a U.S. military hospital. A U.S. Marine Corps Judge Advocate, Major Joshua Mast, and his wife, Stephanie Mast, initiated custody proceedings and ultimately obtained a Virginia adoption order for the child. Separately, the U.S. Embassy gave custody to a man claiming to be the child's uncle, and the infant was subsequently cared for by John and Jane Doe, who later evacuated from Afghanistan to the United States with the child during Operation Allies Refuge. After arriving in the U.S., the Masts took custody of the child. The Does then challenged the adoption in Virginia state court, but the Supreme Court of Virginia rejected their challenge.Following the state proceedings, the Does filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, seeking, among other things, a protective order to prevent the defendants from disclosing their identities. The district court granted the protective order, concluding that disclosing the Does’ identities would pose a substantial risk to their safety and that of their family in Afghanistan. The order prohibited the defendants and their representatives from revealing any information that could directly or indirectly identify the Does or their family members unless a non-disclosure agreement was executed. After the Does engaged with the media while maintaining anonymity, the Masts moved to vacate or modify the protective order, arguing it was an unconstitutional restraint on speech. The district court denied the motion and held Joshua Mast in contempt for violating the order.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The Fourth Circuit held that the protective order, while a content-based prior restraint, fit within a narrow exception because it was narrowly tailored to serve the government’s compelling interest in national security—specifically, the protection of individuals perceived as U.S. collaborators. The court found the order survived strict scrutiny and was not unconstitutionally vague. View "Doe v. Mast" on Justia Law

A child attended the Ventura Unified School District from 2012 to 2021. During this time, the district performed several psychoeducational assessments, identifying the child as having a specific learning disability but failing to assess for autism. The child’s parents, aware of his persistent academic and behavioral struggles, repeatedly collaborated with the district, sought private assessments, and requested additional services, which were denied. The child was ultimately diagnosed with autism in 2021, after which the parents initiated legal action seeking remedies for allegedly inadequate education dating back to 2012.After the parents filed a due process complaint in 2021, an Administrative Law Judge concluded that claims for services before April 8, 2019, were time-barred under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA) two-year statute of limitations, finding the parents knew or should have known of the district’s failure to assess for autism and of the child’s inadequate education before that date. The ALJ awarded relief only for the period after April 8, 2019. The parents then sought further review in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which reversed the ALJ. The district court held that the statute of limitations did not begin until the autism diagnosis in 2021, reasoning the parents lacked the requisite knowledge to challenge the district’s actions earlier. The court also found both statutory exceptions to the limitations period applied and awarded remedies for the 2012–2019 period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court. The court held that the IDEA’s two-year statute of limitations begins when parents knew or should have known both of the district’s action or inaction and that their child was being denied a free appropriate public education. It concluded that the parents’ claims for pre-2019 educational services were untimely. The appellate court vacated the district court’s remedial orders and remanded for further proceedings regarding attorneys’ fees. View "J. R. V. VENTURA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT" on Justia Law

A driver was stopped by a county deputy after allegedly committing traffic violations that led the officer to suspect impaired driving. The officer noted possible signs of intoxication and requested that the driver submit to alcohol testing, which the driver refused. Under Montana’s implied-consent law, the officer seized the driver’s license and issued a notice of automatic six-month suspension. The next day, the driver petitioned for judicial review, arguing that the officer lacked sufficient suspicion for the stop and the test requests.The Eighth Judicial District Court set an evidentiary hearing, but delays resulted from a combination of the petitioner’s request for a continuance due to jury duty and procedural orders requiring both parties to file briefs before a hearing could be held. The petitioner filed a brief, but the State did not, leaving the hearing vacated. Before the court ruled, the six-month suspension expired and the license was reinstated. When the petitioner moved to reset the hearing, the State moved to dismiss the case as moot, arguing that the only relief available was the return of the license, which had already occurred. The District Court agreed and dismissed the petition as moot.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the expiration of the suspension and reinstatement of the license rendered the case moot. The court held that the case was not moot because the petitioner’s timely challenge could still result in relief, such as removal of the suspension from his driving record and potential reimbursement of reinstatement fees. The court found that the statute contemplates judicial review even after the suspension period if the challenge was timely filed and pursued. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Kalafat v. State" on Justia Law