Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs Jodi Bourgeois and Pamela Smith filed separate lawsuits against The TJX Companies, Inc., Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and The Gap, Inc., alleging violations of the New Hampshire Driver Privacy Act (NH DPA). The plaintiffs claimed that the retailers required them to present their driver's licenses for non-receipted returns and subsequently disclosed their driver's license information to a third party, The Retail Equation (TRE), without their consent. The plaintiffs argued that this disclosure violated sections IX(a) and IX(b) of the NH DPA.The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire dismissed the complaints in all three cases. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the NH DPA because a driver's license in the possession of the person to whom it pertains is not considered a "motor vehicle record" under the statute. The court also found that the information disclosed to TRE was not from a "department record" as defined by the NH DPA.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the consolidated appeals. The court affirmed the district court's dismissals, agreeing that the plaintiffs' driver's licenses, in their own possession, are not "motor vehicle records" under the NH DPA. The court also held that the term "department record" refers to authentic copies of documents deposited and kept with the New Hampshire Department of Safety, and the information disclosed to TRE did not fall within this definition. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims under sections IX(a) and IX(b) of the NH DPA were not supported by the facts alleged. View "Bourgeois v. The TJX Companies, Inc." on Justia Law

Manuel Antonio Herrera Hernandez, an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution, alleged that his legal paperwork was misplaced during his temporary transfer to restrictive housing in October 2021. Before entering restrictive housing, Hernandez surrendered his personal property, including legal documents. Upon return, he signed a form indicating receipt of all his property but later realized his legal paperwork was missing. Hernandez claimed that Sergeant Theresa Lee assured him he would receive his paperwork once he returned to the general population, but it remained missing. Hernandez filed a grievance, which was rejected as untimely by the complaint examiner, and the warden affirmed this decision.Hernandez then filed a lawsuit in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Sergeant Lee and other prison officials deprived him of his right of access to the courts. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that Hernandez failed to exhaust administrative remedies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Hernandez argued that his time in restrictive housing complicated his ability to file a timely grievance and that he was not provided a handbook explaining the grievance process in Spanish. The court found that Hernandez did not preserve the handbook issue in the district court. However, the court determined that there were genuine disputes regarding whether Hernandez had any reason to file a grievance before learning his paperwork was missing and whether Sergeant Lee's assurances excused his failure to exhaust administrative remedies.The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual disputes regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court also noted the need to determine the personal involvement of the other defendants in the alleged deprivation. View "Hernandez v Lee" on Justia Law

In 2019, Colby James Bray died while in the custody of the Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections (IDJC). His parents, Jeffrey and Michelle Bray, acting as personal representatives of his estate, filed a wrongful death suit in federal court one day before the two-year statute of limitations expired. They later voluntarily dismissed the federal case and refiled in state court nearly three years after Colby's death. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The district court granted the motions and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.The Brays appealed, arguing that Idaho Code section 5-234 and 28 U.S.C. section 1367(d) tolled the statute of limitations. The district court had concluded that section 5-234 did not toll the time for filing the state complaint and that section 1367(d) did not apply to IDJC due to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court also awarded costs and attorney fees to the defendants.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court's ruling that section 5-234 did not toll the statute of limitations. It also agreed that the claims against Meacham and the Individual Defendants were time-barred under section 1367(d) because the Brays did not file within 30 days after the federal court dismissed those claims. However, the court found that section 1367(d) did toll the time for filing the complaint against IDJC, but IDJC was immune from the claims under Idaho Code section 6-904B(5). The court upheld the district court's award of attorney fees and costs to the defendants and awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal to the respondents. View "Bray v. ID Dept of Juvenile Corrections" on Justia Law

M.R., a minor, was substantiated by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) for sexual abuse of another minor. DCF sent the notice of substantiation to M.R.'s father, who requested an administrative review but did not participate in it. The review upheld the substantiation, and M.R.'s father did not appeal further. M.R. later sought a second review from the Human Services Board after the appeal period had expired, claiming he was unaware of the substantiation and the review. The Board dismissed his appeal as untimely.The Human Services Board found that M.R.'s appeal was not filed within the required 30-day period after the administrative review decision. M.R. argued that he was entitled to personal notice under the statute, that the lack of direct notice deprived him of due process, and that there was good cause for his delay in filing the appeal. The Board rejected these arguments and dismissed the appeal.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Board's decision. The Court held that the statutory requirement to send notice to the minor's parents or guardian was sufficient and did not violate due process. The Court found that the procedures in place were reasonably calculated to apprise the minor and their parents of the substantiation decision and their rights to request reviews. The Court also held that there was no good cause for M.R.'s untimely appeal, as the failure to appeal was due to factors within his father's control. Therefore, the Board's dismissal of the appeal as untimely was upheld. View "In re Appeal of M.R." on Justia Law

Jane Roe, a student at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, reported to President Paige Patterson that she had been sexually assaulted by a fellow student, John Doe. Patterson notified the police, and Doe was expelled for violating the campus firearms policy. Later, Patterson was removed from his position by the university's board, partly due to his handling of Roe's complaint. In response, a group of donors published a letter accusing Roe of lying about the assault and claiming the encounters were consensual. Roe sued Patterson and the university for defamation, alleging that Patterson's agent provided the defamatory content for the letter.The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of Patterson, concluding that Colter, Patterson's chief of staff, had not acted as Patterson's agent in drafting the letter. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit found that there was a fact issue regarding Colter's agency and certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Texas.The Supreme Court of Texas held that a person who supplies defamatory material to another for publication can be liable if they intend or know that the material will be published. Additionally, a defamation plaintiff can survive summary judgment without identifying specific statements made by the defendant if the evidence is legally sufficient to support a finding that the defendant was the source of the defamatory content. The court emphasized that the plaintiff must show that the defendant was the source of the defamatory statements through direct or circumstantial evidence, but need not provide verbatim evidence of the underlying communication. The case was remanded to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "ROE v. PATTERSON" on Justia Law

Jessenia Burton, a student driver, was involved in a car accident during a drivers' education course on April 30, 2017. Burton and her parents sued several defendants, including West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, which provided coverage for the vehicles used in the course. Burton retained neuropsychologist Dr. Daniel Tranel, who conducted an evaluation and diagnosed her with a concussion, postconcussion syndrome, PTSD, and major depressive disorder. Dr. Tranel's report included summaries of psychological and neuropsychological tests administered to Burton.The Iowa District Court for Polk County granted West Bend's motion to compel the production of Dr. Tranel's psychological test material and test data. The court reasoned that since Burton made her mental condition an element of her claim, the information was discoverable under Iowa Code section 228.6(4)(a). The court ordered the information to be produced to West Bend and its attorneys, issuing a protective order to limit further disclosure.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The court held that Iowa Code section 228.9 explicitly prohibits the disclosure of psychological test material and test data in a judicial proceeding to anyone other than a licensed psychologist designated by the individual. The court emphasized that the statute's language is clear and unambiguous, and the only exception to this prohibition is disclosure to another licensed psychologist. The court concluded that the district court erred in granting the motion to compel and vacated the protective order. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation. View "Burton v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Company" on Justia Law

A vacancy on the Scott County Board of Supervisors occurred when Tony Knobbe resigned to become the Scott County Treasurer. A committee of county officials decided to fill the vacancy by appointment and kept certain applications confidential during the process. The committee referred to applicants by numbers and only revealed the name of the appointed individual. After the appointment, two individuals submitted open records requests for the confidential names and applications, which Scott County denied, citing Iowa Code section 22.7(18).The individuals filed a petition in the Iowa District Court for Scott County, which granted summary judgment in favor of Scott County, determining that the applications were exempt from disclosure under Iowa Code section 22.7(18). The district court relied on the precedent set in City of Sioux City v. Greater Sioux City Press Club, which held that employment applications could be kept confidential.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The court held that the applications for the vacant county board of supervisors position were not confidential under section 22.7(18). The court reasoned that the applicants were not promised confidentiality beforehand, and the public nature of the appointment process meant it was not reasonable to believe that people would be deterred from applying if their applications were disclosed. The court ordered that the names and applications be disclosed and awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiffs. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Diercks v. Scott County, Iowa" on Justia Law

Edward M.R., a special-education student in Washington, D.C.'s public schools, filed an administrative due process complaint on June 19, 2020, alleging that his individualized education plans (IEPs) from 2015 through 2019 were insufficient to meet his needs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). He claimed deficiencies in speech/language therapy, occupational therapy, and other areas. The hearing officer dismissed his claims, finding that challenges to his 2015, 2016, and 2017 IEPs were untimely and that his 2018 and 2019 IEPs were appropriate.Edward then sued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the hearing officer's determinations regarding the 2017, 2018, and 2019 IEPs. The district court affirmed the hearing officer's decisions, leading Edward to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Edward's challenge to his 2017 IEP was untimely, as it was filed more than two years after he knew or should have known about the alleged deficiencies. Regarding the 2018 and 2019 IEPs, the court found that Edward failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the hearing officer was wrong in concluding that the IEPs were appropriate. The court noted that repeating goals in the IEPs was reasonable given Edward's severe memory issues and that the IEPs included new, appropriately ambitious goals.The court also rejected Edward's claims that his IEPs lacked research-based instruction, finding that he received such instruction even if it was not explicitly stated in the IEPs. Finally, the court did not consider Edward's claim regarding the implementation of Applied Behavior Analysis, as it was not exhausted through the administrative process. The court affirmed the district court's decision. View "M.R. v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Nancy Johnson and Domenico Zurini were involved in a motor vehicle accident in Omaha, Nebraska. Just before the 4-year statute of limitations expired, Johnson and her husband filed a negligence complaint against Zurini in the district court for Douglas County. After attempting to serve summons, they discovered that Zurini had died before the complaint was filed. They then had a special administrator appointed and moved to revive the action in the name of the special administrator. The district court initially granted the motion, and the Johnsons filed an amended complaint naming the special administrator as the defendant. The special administrator entered a voluntary appearance and then moved to vacate the order of revivor and dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that no viable action had been commenced within the statute of limitations. The district court agreed and dismissed the action as time barred.The Johnsons appealed, and the case was moved to the Nebraska Supreme Court's docket. The court reviewed whether the Johnsons properly commenced their negligence action within the applicable statute of limitations. The court noted that the original complaint, which named a deceased person as the sole defendant, was a legal nullity and did not validly commence an action under Nebraska law. The court also found that the amended complaint, which named the special administrator as the defendant, was filed after the limitations period expired and did not relate back to the original complaint under Nebraska's relation back statute.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the original complaint was a legal nullity and did not commence an action. The amended complaint was time barred, and the relation back statute did not apply. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to vacate the order of revivor and substitution. View "Johnson v. Antoniutti" on Justia Law

The Town of Apple Valley (TAV) sought to condemn a private water utility system through eminent domain. In November 2015, TAV passed two resolutions of necessity (RON) to acquire the system, which was owned by Carlyle Infrastructure Partners and operated by Apple Valley Ranchos Water (AVR). In January 2016, TAV filed an eminent domain action, and Carlyle sold the system to Liberty Utilities. After a 67-day bench trial, the trial court found that TAV did not have the right to acquire the system and entered judgment for Liberty, awarding attorney’s fees. TAV appealed.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County ruled that Liberty only needed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the public necessity elements were not met, and that the administrative record (AR) was irrelevant. The trial court allowed Liberty to present any evidence it deemed relevant, including post-RON evidence, and found in favor of Liberty.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the trial court applied the wrong standard of review by not using the gross abuse of discretion standard. The trial court also erred by not admitting the AR, failing to start its analysis with the RON’s findings, and improperly allowing Liberty to rely solely on post-RON evidence. The appellate court emphasized that the rebuttable presumption in favor of TAV’s findings should have been the starting point for the trial court’s analysis.The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, allowing the trial court to determine whether to permit TAV to take the water system, remand the matter to TAV for further administrative proceedings, or hold a new trial applying the correct standards. The judgment and attorney’s fees award were reversed, and TAV was allowed to recover its costs on appeal. View "Town of Apple Valley v. Apple Valley Ranchose Water" on Justia Law