Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Black Hawk County, Iowa, charges jail inmates daily fees and a booking fee. Rather than pursuing the standard civil reimbursement process, which includes judicial review, the County requires inmates to sign confessions of judgment upon release, acknowledging the debt and agreeing to payment terms. Inmates’ money is seized and applied toward the debt, and the confession allows the County to file for judgment without further judicial review. Leticia Roberts and Calvin Sayers, former inmates who signed these confessions under coercive circumstances, allege that the County’s process deprived them of an opportunity to challenge the jail fees and violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. Roberts made payments out of fear of further enforcement, while Sayers made one payment and had money seized by jail officials.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa dismissed Roberts and Sayers’s claims for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The district court reasoned that their injury was not traceable to the confession of judgment policy because they would owe jail fees regardless, and any payments were voluntary. The court also denied their motion for a preliminary injunction and leave to amend the complaint.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Eighth Circuit held that Roberts and Sayers had standing to seek damages and injunctive or declaratory relief, as they plausibly alleged injuries traceable to the County’s policy and a real threat of recurring harm. The appellate court found reasonable inferences that the confessions of judgment were coercive and not voluntary, and that the County’s actions deprived Roberts and Sayers of property without constitutionally adequate process. The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Roberts v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The parties in this case are former spouses who share a minor daughter. Their marriage was dissolved in 2019, and they were awarded joint legal and physical custody. Following the dissolution, both filed numerous motions related to custody, resulting in increased litigation. In 2022 and 2023, each sought sole custody through postjudgment modification motions. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing over several dates to resolve these motions and others. Ultimately, the court awarded the defendant sole legal and primary physical custody, issuing its decision 133 days after the close of evidence.After the decision, the plaintiff moved to void and set aside the custody order, arguing that the decision was untimely under General Statutes § 51-183b, which sets a 120-day deadline for rendering judgment. The Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, denied this motion, ruling that postjudgment modification motions are “short calendar matters” governed by Practice Book § 11-19, not § 51-183b. Under § 11-19, the party must file a motion for reassignment within 14 days after the 120-day deadline to preserve a timeliness objection, which the plaintiff did not do. The trial court also did not expressly rule on two contempt motions, and, without prior notice to the parties, it took judicial notice of the plaintiff’s conduct in a prior, unrelated custody proceeding involving a different child.The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had waived her timeliness objection by failing to follow the procedure set forth in Practice Book § 11-19. The court declined to review the claim regarding the unresolved contempt motions, as the plaintiff had not requested a ruling or sought articulation. However, the Supreme Court found that the trial court abused its discretion by sua sponte taking judicial notice of facts from the unrelated custody proceeding without giving the plaintiff notice and an opportunity to respond. This error was harmful because it significantly influenced the custody decision. The Supreme Court reversed the custody award and remanded for further proceedings, affirming the decision in all other respects. View "Hamilton v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

An engineer who had worked for more than two decades at a manufacturing company resigned after a demotion and accepted a leadership position at a competitor. As he was leaving, the company discovered that he had potentially printed several documents containing confidential information about its products. Although forensic analysis could not confirm that he actually printed these documents, the company concluded he had taken trade secrets and sued him and his new employer, alleging breach of a confidentiality agreement and misappropriation of trade secrets. The company sought a preliminary injunction to prevent disclosure of the alleged secrets and to restrict the engineer’s work with the competitor.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied the preliminary injunction. The district court ruled that the company failed to meet its burden by not providing “clear and convincing” evidence for each of the four required factors for a preliminary injunction: likelihood of success on the merits, risk of irreparable harm, risk of harm to others, and the public interest. The court treated each factor as a separate prerequisite, each requiring clear and convincing proof.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion, clarifying that the district court had committed a legal error. The appellate court held that the correct approach is to weigh all four preliminary injunction factors together in a sliding-scale analysis, not to require clear and convincing evidence for each factor individually. It explained that a heightened standard of proof is not mandated unless required by statute, the Constitution, or in rare cases involving unusually coercive government action, none of which applied here. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for reconsideration under the appropriate standard. View "PCC Airfoils, LLC v. Daugherty" on Justia Law

Carissa Daniels filed a complaint in August 2023 alleging that Patrick R. O’Brien committed timber trespass on her property by cutting trees and bushes. O’Brien’s homeowner’s insurer, MMG Insurance Co., initially defended him under a reservation of rights but later withdrew that reservation and settled the claim with Daniels. Daniels then moved to dismiss her complaint with prejudice as part of the settlement. O’Brien objected to both the settlement and the dismissal, arguing he should have the opportunity to defend against Daniels’s claim and thereby preserve a potential wrongful use of civil process claim against her.The Superior Court (Oxford County) held a hearing on the motions. During the hearing, MMG moved to intervene to support Daniels’s dismissal, while O’Brien moved to keep the matter on the court’s docket. The court granted Daniels’s motion to dismiss with prejudice in February 2025 and denied O’Brien’s motion for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. O’Brien then appealed, raising procedural objections and challenging MMG’s authority to settle over his objection.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and found no abuse of discretion by the Superior Court in granting the dismissal with prejudice. The Court explained that under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), whether to allow a voluntary dismissal is within the trial court’s discretion and does not require a hearing unless evidence is taken. The Court further held that there was no procedural error, and that the merits of the settlement and MMG’s authority to settle were not at issue in this proceeding. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. The main holding is that a trial court does not abuse its discretion by granting a plaintiff’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, even over a defendant’s objection based on potential future claims. View "Daniels v. O'Brien" on Justia Law

After a boat owned by Bryan and Bethea Crabtree was severely damaged by fire while in storage in Florida, the Crabtrees sought coverage under their insurance policy with Great Lakes Insurance. Great Lakes denied their claim, alleging noncompliance with policy conditions, and subsequently filed a declaratory judgment action against the Crabtrees in the United States District Court for the District of Montana, based on the policy’s forum-selection clause and the Crabtrees’ Montana address.The parties agreed that Great Lakes would voluntarily dismiss the Montana case and refile in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (SDFL), with the understanding that the Crabtrees would not contest jurisdiction or venue. Great Lakes dismissed the Montana action and refiled in SDFL. In response, the Crabtrees initiated a state court action and moved to stay or dismiss the SDFL federal suit. Instead of opposing the motion, Great Lakes voluntarily dismissed the SDFL suit as well. That same day, Great Lakes refiled a third action in Montana, which was later transferred back to SDFL at the Crabtrees’ request and with Great Lakes’s consent.Upon return to SDFL, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida considered whether, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(B), Great Lakes’s second voluntary dismissal barred further litigation of the same claim. The court granted summary judgment for the Crabtrees, holding that Rule 41(a)(1)(B) means what it says: a second voluntary dismissal acts as an adjudication on the merits, i.e., a dismissal with prejudice, even if the first dismissal was by agreement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, concluding that Great Lakes was precluded from relitigating its claim in SDFL. View "Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Crabtree" on Justia Law

A Chilean company contracted with an Italian construction firm to design and build a hospital in Santiago, Chile, with disputes to be resolved by arbitration in Chile. The Italian firm later underwent a restructuring proceeding in Italy, during which it spun off its operating business and merged into another Italian company, Webuild S.p.A., which acquired most of its assets. After the contract was terminated due to project delays, arbitration in Chile resulted in an award in favor of the Chilean company and against the original Italian firm. The Chilean courts reduced but otherwise affirmed the arbitral award, and further appeal was denied.Seeking to enforce the arbitral award in the United States, the Chilean company brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Webuild, claiming it was the successor in interest to the award debtor. The company asked the District Court to assert quasi in rem jurisdiction by attaching Webuild’s shares in a Delaware subsidiary. The District Court granted Webuild’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that there were insufficient contacts between the forum, Webuild, and the underlying controversy. The District Court also held that, even if an exception to the minimum contacts requirement applied, it would not permit jurisdiction here because no court had yet determined that Webuild was indeed liable for the arbitral debt.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Shaffer v. Heitner, a court may exercise traditional quasi in rem jurisdiction to enforce a foreign arbitral award in an action to collect on an already adjudicated debt, without requiring minimum contacts. The appellate court vacated the District Court’s dismissal and remanded for a determination of whether Webuild is the successor in interest to the original award debtor. View "Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana de Salud S.A. v. Webuild S.P.A" on Justia Law

A local environmental organization brought a citizen suit against an electric utility company, alleging that the company’s plan to close a large coal ash storage impoundment at one of its plants violated federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. The organization asserted that the plan would leave significant amounts of coal ash in contact with groundwater, causing toxins to leach into the Mobile River and surrounding waterways, which harmed the recreational and aesthetic interests of its members. The plant’s closure plan, already underway, was a cap-in-place strategy rather than removal, and the organization claimed this approach did not satisfy the federal performance standards meant to prevent further pollution.The case was first reviewed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. After briefing and a hearing, the district court dismissed the complaint, holding that the organization lacked standing for failing to establish causation and redressability, and that the claims were not ripe for review because the closure plan would not be completed for several years and its final form was uncertain. The court reasoned that the alleged harms predated the closure plan and that a judicial order would not provide immediate relief.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the district court’s findings. The appellate court concluded that the organization adequately pleaded standing by alleging concrete injuries caused by the utility’s ongoing implementation of a closure plan that did not comply with EPA regulations, and that a compliant plan would likely alleviate those harms. The court also found the claims ripe for review, as the legal issues were fit for decision and delaying consideration would further harm the organization’s members. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Mobile Baykeeper, Inc. v. Alabama Power Company" on Justia Law

A large group of cities, towns, and counties in West Virginia sued a pharmacy benefit manager, alleging that it contributed to the oversupply of opioids in their communities, thus creating a public nuisance. The local governments sought an injunction requiring the defendant to fund the abatement of the ongoing public nuisance and to compensate them for the costs of rectifying it. This proposed “abatement fund” was described as covering not just eliminating the oversupply itself, but also providing addiction treatment, education, and community rehabilitation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia denied the defendant’s demand for a jury trial, determining that the Seventh Amendment did not confer a right to a jury trial because this was a governmental public nuisance action seeking only abatement, which the court characterized as an equitable remedy. The district court also ordered a bifurcated bench trial on the public-nuisance claim, with a potential statewide abatement phase, and denied the defendant’s motions for reconsideration or for interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case on a petition for a writ of mandamus. The Fourth Circuit held that the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial because the relief sought by the local governments included a classic legal remedy—compensation for downstream harms resulting from the alleged public nuisance, such as addiction treatment and community rehabilitation. The court explained that, at the time of the Founding, only courts of law—not equity—could award such monetary relief for the consequences of a public nuisance. Therefore, the defendant was entitled to a jury trial on the public-nuisance claim, and the petition for mandamus was granted in part. View "In re: Express Scripts, Inc." on Justia Law

A company was the beneficiary of life insurance policies held in a trust formed by Daniel Carpenter. After the insurer paid proceeds to the trust, the beneficiary sought to recover the full amount and alleged that Carpenter hid assets through hundreds of shell companies. Carpenter was convicted of fraud, and the beneficiary obtained a judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, later registering the judgment in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. That court entered judgment against several Carpenter entities, including a limited liability company that owned another company incorporated in Oklahoma. A receiver was authorized to preserve the assets of the debtor company.An entity called Phoenix Charitable Trust, apparently linked to Carpenter, entered the Oklahoma proceedings as an “interested party” through its counsel, who had represented Carpenter and related entities in other courts. Phoenix objected to several orders issued by the district court: an award of attorney fees and costs against Carpenter, an order authorizing the sale of the Oklahoma company’s insurance portfolio, and an order denying Phoenix’s motion to vacate a prior injunction against Carpenter and his entities.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit considered whether Phoenix had standing to challenge these orders. The court found that Phoenix failed to demonstrate it was injured by the attorney fees order or the sale-of-assets order, as required for Article III standing. Regarding the injunction, the court concluded that Phoenix lacked prudential standing because it was asserting the rights of others rather than its own. The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of standing and did not reach the merits of Phoenix’s challenges. View "Universitas Education v. Phoenix Charitable Trust" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on allegations of breach of contract and related claims involving a credit card account that the defendant allegedly opened with a national bank. The bank claimed that the defendant opened the account, used it for purchases and cash advances, and then defaulted by failing to make the required payments, leaving a substantial unpaid balance. The defendant denied the material allegations in her answer to the complaint.After the initial pleadings, the bank moved for summary judgment in the Kent County Superior Court, asserting that there were no material facts in dispute and it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Importantly, the bank’s motion was not initially accompanied by any supporting affidavits or exhibits. The defendant filed an affidavit in opposition, pointing out the lack of any supporting affidavit from the bank. On the day of the hearing, the bank submitted an affidavit by emailing it to the hearing justice’s clerk, rather than filing and serving it in accordance with procedural rules. Despite the defendant’s objections to this late submission and improper service, the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank, relying on the belated affidavit. Final judgment was entered, and the defendant appealed.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The Supreme Court found that the bank’s failure to timely file and serve the affidavit, as required by Rule 6(c) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, prejudiced the defendant’s ability to respond. The Supreme Court held that the hearing justice erred in relying on the untimely affidavit and in not postponing the hearing. The judgment of the Superior Court was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. View "American Express National Bank v. Perretta" on Justia Law