Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Two brothers became parties to a dispute over the inheritance of their father’s estate after the father died intestate. One brother, Christopher, asserted that his sibling, Daniel, was not the biological child of their father, Ernest, and therefore not entitled to inherit. Christopher petitioned for letters of administration in the probate court, claiming to be Ernest's sole heir. The probate court granted him letters of administration. Christopher then sought to remove the estate administration to the circuit court, filing a petition that was not verified under oath as required by Alabama law. The circuit court entered an order removing the administration and later, based on DNA evidence, an affidavit from the mother, and Daniel’s marriage certificate, declared that Daniel was not Ernest’s biological child or heir.After the circuit court’s order, Daniel filed a postjudgment motion arguing that the removal of the estate administration was invalid because Christopher’s initial removal petition was not sworn, as required by Ala. Code § 12-11-41. Around the same time as the hearing on this motion, Christopher submitted an amended, sworn petition for removal, and the circuit court then entered a new order granting removal. However, this action occurred after the circuit court had already issued its prior order resolving the inheritance dispute.The Supreme Court of Alabama held that the circuit court’s jurisdiction over the estate administration was not properly invoked until a sworn petition was filed, as mandated by statute. Thus, the July 2025 order declaring Daniel not an heir was void due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction at the time it was entered. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the circuit court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to vacate the July 2025 order. View "Thomas v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The case concerns an employee who worked at a Los Angeles hotel and was terminated in March 2020, allegedly due to COVID-19-related staffing issues. The employee sued the hotel and its affiliates in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging federal and state law discrimination claims. However, before starting work, the employee had signed an arbitration agreement covering disputes related to employment or termination. The hotel moved to stay the court proceedings and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), and the District Court stayed the case pending arbitration. Arbitration proceeded, resulting in an award against the employee on all claims, as well as sanctions for misconduct.After the arbitrator’s award, the hotel moved to confirm the award in the District Court under §9 of the FAA, while the employee sought to vacate it under §10. The employee argued that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the award because the post-arbitration motions did not independently satisfy the requirements for federal-question or diversity jurisdiction. The District Court disagreed, held that it retained jurisdiction, and confirmed the arbitral award. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, distinguishing the case from Supreme Court precedent involving freestanding FAA motions, and holding that the District Court’s original jurisdiction over the employee’s federal claims extended to the post-arbitration proceedings.The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Second Circuit’s judgment. It held that when a federal court has original jurisdiction over claims and stays those claims pending arbitration under §3 of the FAA, the court retains jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the resulting arbitral award under §9 and §10. The Court reasoned that nothing in the FAA divests the court of jurisdiction over the original claims while arbitration is pending, and that post-arbitration motions are integral to the resolution of those stayed claims. View "Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties" on Justia Law

Two individuals were involved in a car accident, after which one party sued for damages, alleging a traumatic brain injury and seeking nearly $2 million. The parties agreed that the plaintiff would undergo a neuropsychological examination, but they disagreed on the terms governing the examination. The defendant argued that Nevada’s Rule of Civil Procedure 35 (NRCP 35) should control the process, while the plaintiff asserted that a new statute, NRS 629.620, provided additional rights and should apply.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada ruled that NRCP 35 governed the examination but imposed several conditions, including disclosure of raw test data to the plaintiff’s counsel (with restrictions), permitting non-neuropsychologist experts to review the data, allowing the exam to be audio recorded, and permitting the presence of a court-certified interpreter. The defendant sought reconsideration, which was denied, and then petitioned for extraordinary relief from the Nevada Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of Nevada held that NRS 629.620 is unconstitutional to the extent it governs discovery in civil litigation and conflicts with NRCP 35. The court found that NRCP 35 is a procedural rule within the judiciary’s domain, and legislative attempts to alter its operation via NRS 629.620 violate the separation of powers. Regarding the specific exam conditions, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing disclosure of raw data to counsel with a protective order. However, it found the district court abused its discretion by permitting audio recording and the presence of an interpreter without a showing of good cause. The court granted the writ in part, directing the district court to modify those conditions, and denied relief as to the other challenged conditions. View "POWERS VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law

Union Plaintiffs, comprised of two labor organizations, challenged the federal government's termination of approximately $400 million in funding to Columbia University and its demand for significant reforms at the institution. Columbia University was not a party in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to restore funding, prevent enforcement of the government’s reform demands, protect future grants and contracts, and recover damages.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the case for lack of standing. After this dismissal, the plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. While the appeal was pending, Columbia and the government reached an agreement whereby most of the disputed funding was restored and Columbia agreed to implement certain reforms. Following this, the plaintiffs withdrew their requests for prospective equitable relief and damages, citing changed circumstances.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed a joint motion from both parties to dismiss the appeal, vacate the district court’s order, and remand with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. The court held that the case was moot for reasons not fairly attributable to the plaintiffs and granted the joint motion in full. The court dismissed the appeal as moot, vacated the district court’s order, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case as moot, emphasizing that vacatur was appropriate due to circumstances beyond the plaintiffs’ control and the agreement between the parties. View "Am. Ass'n of Univ. Professors v. Department of Justice" on Justia Law

A married couple, both active-duty military members, separated after nearly two decades of marriage and executed a notarized separation agreement in 2020 while stationed in Okinawa. The agreement provided that the wife would receive $1,500 per month in maintenance until divorce, 20% of the husband’s military retirement pay upon his retirement, and be named as beneficiary of his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). The wife later initiated a divorce in South Dakota, and the parties submitted a stipulation and settlement agreement incorporating key provisions from their separation. The divorce decree was filed in February 2021. Over time, the husband failed to make some required maintenance payments and, after retiring, did not pay the wife her portion of his retirement nor complete the SBP paperwork. The wife sought contempt and modifications, while the husband argued compliance was impossible due to deficiencies in the decree.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Charles Mix County, declined to hold the husband in contempt, finding the divorce decree’s orders too vague for enforcement. The court denied modification of the property division, found no fraud or coercion, and refused to vacate the decree. It reduced the wife’s retirement share from 20% to 16.1% using a coverture formula, ordered payment of $5,000 in arrears plus 8% interest, and instructed the husband to effectuate the SBP. Both parties appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that reducing the wife’s retirement share below the agreed 20% was error, as was applying an 8% rather than the statutory 10% interest rate to arrears. The court remanded for correction of those issues, but affirmed the denial of contempt, refusal to vacate the decree, and the exclusion of additional payments for stimulus or tax refunds. The court also found no due process violations or abuse of discretion in declining to take sworn testimony. View "Shevling v. Major" on Justia Law

The appellant filed a lawsuit alleging medical malpractice and gross negligence against several healthcare providers and associated entities. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia dismissed the complaint, finding it barred by the statute of limitations and for failure to state a claim. After the dismissal, the appellant sought to file a notice of appeal but missed the standard thirty-day deadline, asserting that he did not receive timely notice of the dismissal order due to administrative errors, including misdirected court communications. He filed a motion for leave to late file his notice of appeal, claiming excusable neglect or good cause due to these circumstances.Upon review of the appellant’s motion, the Superior Court denied the request. The court relied on D.C. App. R. 4(a)(7), which allows reopening the time to appeal under limited circumstances, including a fourteen-day deadline after notice of the judgment. Because the motion was filed more than fourteen days after the appellant learned of the judgment, the trial court found it untimely under this provision. The court also cited potential prejudice to appellees from having to defend a “frivolous” appeal.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals vacated the Superior Court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. The appellate court held that the trial court erred by applying the timing requirements of Rule 4(a)(7) when the motion was properly brought under Rule 4(a)(5), which provides a different standard for extensions based on excusable neglect or good cause and does not impose the same fourteen-day limit. The appellate court further clarified that the merits of the underlying case and the ordinary burden of defending an appeal are not relevant factors in assessing such motions. View "Newton v. Grajny" on Justia Law

The case concerns the United States Postal Service’s contract for canine explosive-detection services. The USPS awarded the contract to K2 Solutions, Inc. (“K2”), while Global K9 Protection Group (“Global K9”) and Michael Stapleton Associates, Ltd. were unsuccessful bidders. Global K9 filed a bid protest in the United States Court of Federal Claims, initially challenging the evaluation of its bid but not directly alleging misconduct by K2. K2 received notice of the original complaint and chose not to intervene, believing the government would adequately defend its interests.The Claims Court case evolved when Global K9 filed an amended complaint under seal, adding new allegations that K2 had materially misrepresented its capabilities during the bidding process. Contrary to court rules and the protective order, Global K9 did not file a redacted public version of the amended complaint, and K2 did not receive notice of these new allegations. The Claims Court ultimately found that K2 had made a material misrepresentation and issued an injunction disqualifying K2 from contract performance. After learning of the injunction, K2 moved to intervene, but by then, the USPS had terminated K2’s contract for default, relying in part on the court’s findings.K2 appealed the denial of its motion to intervene. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held the case was not moot because K2’s interests in contesting the misrepresentation finding remained live in separate proceedings. However, the appellate court affirmed the Claims Court’s decision that K2’s motion to intervene was untimely, as K2 could have sought intervention upon learning of the amended complaint’s existence. The Federal Circuit also found that K2 was not a necessary party because it failed to act promptly to protect its interests. The judgment of the Claims Court was affirmed. View "GLOBAL K9 PROTECTION GROUP, LLC v. US " on Justia Law

The case involved Andy Hyman, who had previously been convicted of sexual offenses against minors. After serving his sentence, the State of South Carolina sought to civilly commit him as a sexually violent predator (SVP). As required by statute, the South Carolina Office of Mental Health (OMH) conducted a pre-commitment evaluation and diagnosed Hyman with pedophilic disorder, but determined he did not meet the legal criteria for SVP status because he was not likely to reoffend. Dissatisfied, the State obtained a second evaluation from the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC), which included a penile plethysmography (PPG) test and resulted in an opposing opinion—MUSC concluded Hyman was an SVP.At trial in Florence County, Hyman moved to exclude the PPG evidence, arguing it was scientifically unreliable due to lack of standardization and high error rates. The trial court denied his motion, finding the PPG reliable and admissible. The jury found Hyman to be an SVP, leading to his commitment. Hyman appealed, and the South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the PPG evidence, since it failed to meet the reliability standards required for scientific evidence.The Supreme Court of South Carolina reviewed the case on a writ of certiorari. It affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding that PPG results are generally inadmissible in judicial proceedings in South Carolina until the underlying science is more thoroughly developed and standardized. The court found that the lack of standardization in PPG administration and interpretation rendered the test inherently unreliable under the applicable evidentiary standard. The court further concluded that admitting the PPG evidence was prejudicial and not harmless error, and remanded the case for a new commitment proceeding. View "In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Hyman" on Justia Law

Three Michigan parents alleged that a local public school district systematically denied their children access to special education services required by federal law. One child with autism reportedly received only a few hours of aide support each day, another autistic child was promised speech therapy that was not provided, and a third child with Down syndrome was allegedly denied evaluation and services altogether. In response, two parents filed complaints with the Michigan Department of Education, which found that the school district violated the children’s rights to a free and appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and issued corrective action plans. However, none of the parents pursued the IDEA’s due process complaint process.The parents and children instead filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the school district, Wayne County Regional Educational Service Agency, and the Michigan Department of Education. They alleged violations of the IDEA, Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, and Michigan law, seeking injunctive relief and damages. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the plaintiffs failed to exhaust IDEA administrative remedies. The district court denied the motion, holding that exhaustion was not required for “systemic” failures, and certified the issue for interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the appeal and held that the IDEA does not recognize a “systemic violations” exception to its exhaustion requirement. The court ruled that parents must pursue the IDEA’s due process hearing before filing suit, even in cases alleging district-wide failures related to staffing and funding. The court concluded that none of the recognized exceptions to exhaustion applied and reversed the district court’s decision, foreclosing the lawsuit until administrative remedies are exhausted. View "Ibrahim Alzandani v. Hamtramck Public Schools" on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs challenged the Oklahoma State Board of Education’s adoption of the 2025 Social Studies Standards, arguing the standards were improperly enacted and violated statutory and constitutional rights, including compelled viewpoint-specific speech in public education. After the Board approved the standards, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent their implementation, claiming both procedural errors in their adoption and substantive harms to students, parents, and teachers.The District Court for Oklahoma County heard the case and granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, determining that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed and that their claims about the Oklahoma Administrative Code were incorrect. The District Court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs appealed, raising issues about administrative procedures, standing, and the denial of an opportunity to amend their petition.While the appeal was pending, the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Randall v. Fields, 2025 OK 91, held that the 2025 Social Studies Standards could not be enforced due to violations of the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, rendering the standards void. In light of this, the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma determined that the plaintiffs’ claims for relief were now moot because the challenged standards no longer existed. The Court found that neither the “broad public interest” nor “capable of repetition yet evading review” exceptions to mootness applied. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot, reversed the District Court’s judgment, and directed the lower court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ petition without prejudice due to mootness. View "FORD v. THE OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION" on Justia Law