Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Davariol Marquavis Taylor, an incarcerated individual, sued several members of the correctional staff at Marquette Branch Prison under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations. Taylor claimed that a nurse administered incorrect medication, resulting in another inmate's overdose and death. He also alleged that a doctor sexually assaulted him and punched him when he resisted. Taylor sought to proceed in forma pauperis, which allows a litigant to avoid paying filing fees upfront due to financial constraints.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied Taylor's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, citing the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s (PLRA) “three-strikes” rule, which prevents incarcerated individuals from proceeding in forma pauperis if they have had three or more prior cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. The district court identified four previous cases as strikes against Taylor and dismissed his suit when he did not pay the filing fee. Taylor appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that Taylor had only two valid PLRA strikes, not three. The court determined that the district court's original order incorrectly counted two cases, Adler and Stump, as strikes. The court clarified that dismissals based on Eleventh Amendment immunity or improper filing under § 1983 do not count as strikes unless all claims in the complaint are dismissed for being frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Taylor v. Stevens" on Justia Law

Jeanne Weinstein, a former server at The Ridge Great Steaks & Seafood, filed a collective action complaint alleging that the restaurant and its operator, Stephen Campbell, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by not meeting the federal minimum wage requirement. The Ridge paid servers and bartenders $2.15 per hour, supplementing their income with tips to meet the $7.25 minimum wage. The Ridge also required servers and bartenders to contribute 3% of their gross food sales to a tip pool, which was used to pay support staff. Any excess tips were supposed to be distributed to bartenders, but there were inconsistencies in the record-keeping and distribution process.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted unopposed motions to voluntarily dismiss five opt-in plaintiffs. The court also ruled partially in favor of the defendants on summary judgment, finding that the tip pool funds were not distributed to non-tipped employees. The remaining issue for trial was whether the defendants retained any portion of the tip pool funds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Rule 41(a) permits the dismissal of a single plaintiff in a multiple-plaintiff case if all claims brought by that plaintiff are dismissed. The court also found no error in the district court's conclusion that the defendants did not retain any of the extra tips and operated a lawful tip pool within the parameters of the FLSA. Consequently, the defendants successfully asserted the tip credit defense, and the plaintiffs could not prevail on their minimum wage claim. View "Weinstein v. 440 Corp." on Justia Law

Timothy Upchurch, a Black man, has worked at the Indiana Department of Correction’s Correctional Industrial Facility (CIF) for over thirty years. He filed discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII against the State of Indiana, challenging his demotion from Correctional Lieutenant to Officer, subsequent written reprimands, a suspension, and non-promotions. The district court substituted the Indiana Department of Correction for the State of Indiana as the defendant and granted summary judgment to the Department.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana found insufficient evidence of race discrimination or retaliation to support Upchurch's claims. Upchurch appealed, challenging the substitution of the Department for the State as the defendant and the summary judgment decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court that the Indiana Department of Correction was the proper defendant under Title VII, as it had actual hiring and firing responsibility. The court also reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo, finding that the Department provided nondiscriminatory explanations for its actions, and Upchurch failed to show these explanations were pretextual. The court noted that Upchurch did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of race discrimination or retaliation, including failing to show that comparators were similarly situated or that the Department's actions were motivated by his race or complaints about discrimination.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that no reasonable jury could find that race discrimination or retaliation motivated the adverse employment actions against Upchurch. View "Upchurch v. Indiana" on Justia Law

A mother and father had their parental rights terminated in two consolidated child in need of aid (CINA) cases. They appealed the termination, and the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the termination order and remanded for further proceedings. While the appeal was pending, the children's foster parents petitioned to adopt them, and the superior court granted the adoption petitions. On remand, the superior court did not require the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) to make further efforts to reunify the family and instead reevaluated the same information, terminating the parental rights again. The parents appealed, and the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the termination order a second time.The parents then sought to vacate the adoption and reopen the CINA case. The adoptive parents opposed, arguing that the parents' attempt to vacate the adoption was barred by the one-year limitation period for challenging an adoption decree. The superior court agreed with the adoptive parents, concluding that the parents' failure to appeal the adoption decree itself within one year barred their challenge. The court also concluded that the motion to reopen the CINA case was moot because the adoption remained valid, and the children were no longer in need of aid.The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court's judgment. The court held that the one-year limitation period for challenging an adoption decree under AS 25.23.140(b) applies strictly to appeals of the adoption decree itself, not to appeals of related termination orders in CINA cases. The court emphasized the legislative intent to provide finality and stability for adopted children, noting that allowing collateral attacks on adoption decrees beyond the one-year period would unreasonably disrupt the upbringing of adopted children. Consequently, the adoption remained valid, and the CINA case was moot. View "In re Adoption of C.R. and E.R. v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, two national organizations and five sets of parents, challenged three Washington laws regulating minors' access to mental health care and shelter services, particularly for transgender minors. The parents' children had shown signs of gender dysphoria, and the plaintiffs argued that the laws constrained their ability to parent, forced them to censor their speech, and limited their access to information about their children.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the case for lack of standing, finding that the plaintiffs' alleged harms were speculative and not concrete injuries. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated current or future injuries sufficient to confer standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the individual plaintiffs lacked standing based on current injuries because their alleged injuries were self-inflicted and not directly caused by the laws. The court also found that the plaintiffs' fears of future injuries were too speculative and not imminent. Additionally, the court held that the organizational plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not demonstrate that their members had standing to sue in their own right.The Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated standing to bring their claims and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action. View "International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Inslee" on Justia Law

Rodney Burch, the former Public Works Director for the City of Chubbuck, Idaho, filed a lawsuit against the City and Mayor Kevin England, alleging First Amendment retaliation and violations of Idaho state law. Burch claimed that adverse employment actions were taken against him due to his protected speech, which included criticisms of England’s policies and performance, advocacy for a city administrator position, and displaying a political yard sign supporting England’s opponent during the mayoral election.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that Burch’s criticisms and advocacy were made pursuant to his official duties and thus were not protected speech under the First Amendment. However, the court recognized that Burch’s political yard sign was protected speech. Despite this, the court concluded that Burch failed to establish a First Amendment violation because the defendants had adequate justification for their actions and would have taken the same actions regardless of the yard sign.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit agreed that Burch’s criticisms and advocacy were unprotected as they were part of his official duties. The court also found that while Burch’s yard sign was protected speech, the defendants had legitimate reasons for their actions, including Burch’s unprotected speech and the need to maintain effective city operations. Additionally, the court held that Burch’s state law claim was time-barred as the adverse employment actions occurred outside the statute of limitations.In conclusion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for the defendants, holding that Burch’s First Amendment retaliation claim and Idaho state law claim both failed as a matter of law. View "Burch v. City of Chubbuck" on Justia Law

John Schutt, as an agent for the J.E. Schutt & M.A. Schutt Family Trust, leased a residential property to Sherri Foster. Foster agreed to pay $1,900 per month in rent, with a late charge of $20 per day for any rent paid after the due date. Foster missed rent payments for July, August, and September 2020. Schutt filed a forcible detainer petition seeking unpaid rent and late fees. Foster countersued for money owed for construction services she performed for Schutt. The district court found Foster owed Schutt $5,700 in unpaid rent and awarded Schutt $21,240 in late fees, calculated at $20 per day for 1,062 days. After offsetting judgments, the court ruled Schutt owed Foster $544.98.Foster appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals, arguing for the first time that the late-fee provision was unconscionable. The Court of Appeals reached the merits of Foster's unconscionability claim, despite it not being raised in the district court, and concluded that the late fees were unconscionable under the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. The panel reversed the district court's award of late fees exceeding $2,460, the amount due for the 123 days between Foster's first missed payment and the date she vacated the property.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that appellants must brief exceptions to the preservation rule in their opening brief, as required by Kansas Supreme Court Rule 6.02(a)(5). Foster failed to comply with this requirement, as she first invoked exceptions to the preservation rule in her reply brief. The court concluded that the Court of Appeals erred by relying on these exceptions to reach the merits of Foster's unconscionability claim. Consequently, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and vacated its opinion, affirming the district court's judgment. View "Schutt v. Foster " on Justia Law

A qui tam relator, Sedona Partners LLC, alleged that several transportation service providers (TSPs) engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud a U.S. government shipping program. The TSPs were accused of submitting low-ball bids to win contracts and then falsely certifying the need for foreign flag vessel waivers, despite knowing that U.S. flag vessels were available. This allowed them to use cheaper foreign vessels, thereby increasing their profits while undercutting competitors who submitted legitimate bids.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida initially dismissed Sedona's first amended complaint without prejudice, citing a lack of specificity in the allegations. Sedona then filed a second amended complaint, which included new allegations based on information obtained during discovery. The defendants moved to dismiss this complaint and to strike the new allegations, arguing that they were derived from discovery and thus circumvented the heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The district court agreed, struck the discovery-based allegations, and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice, concluding that without these allegations, Sedona failed to meet Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Rule 9(b) does not prohibit courts from considering allegations based on information obtained in discovery when deciding a motion to dismiss. The court emphasized that Rule 9(b)'s text does not restrict the source of information used to satisfy its requirements and that supplementing the rule with such a restriction would contravene the Supreme Court's guidance against adding pleading requirements on a case-by-case basis. The appellate court vacated the district court's order dismissing the complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc." on Justia Law

Julie and Gerald Ross (Grandparents) filed a petition in district court to adopt their grandchildren, R.K. and J.K., and to terminate the parental rights of the children's biological parents, Steven and Denielle Kracht (Parents). The district court terminated the parental rights of both parents, finding that they had abandoned and neglected their children, that the father had abused the children, and that both parents were unfit. The adoption petition by the Grandparents was still pending.Parents appealed the termination order to the Utah Court of Appeals before the adoption action concluded. The Court of Appeals certified the matter to the Utah Supreme Court for original appellate review. The central issue was whether the termination order issued by the district court was immediately appealable before the adoption action concluded.The Utah Supreme Court held that Utah Code subsection 78B-6-112(3) creates a statutory exception to the final judgment rule, allowing termination orders issued by district courts to be immediately appealable. The court concluded that the statutory language of subsection 78B-6-112(3) indicates that a district court may enter a final order terminating parental rights before a final decree of adoption is entered, thus making such termination orders appealable upon entry. This decision overruled the Court of Appeals' previous decision in In re Adoption of K.R.S., which had held that no exception to the final judgment rule allowed parties to appeal a district-court-issued termination order before it was final. The Utah Supreme Court retained the case for further argument on the merits of the Parents' challenges to the termination order. View "Ross v. Kracht" on Justia Law

A.K. (Mother) is the mother of four minor children, B.C., K.J.C., D.W.C., and B.C. In 2013, while living in Alaska, the children’s biological father, C.C. (Father), was charged with two counts of sexual abuse of a minor and subsequently incarcerated. That same year, Mother and the children moved to Utah. In 2015, Father was convicted, and in 2016, Mother divorced Father and married L.K. (Stepfather), who then began living with and raising the children alongside Mother.In 2020, Mother and Stepfather filed a petition in district court for Stepfather to adopt the children, which included a motion to terminate Father’s parental rights. Father intervened and opposed the termination and adoption. After an evidentiary hearing, the Second District Court in Weber County terminated Father’s parental rights.Father immediately appealed the termination order. While his appeal was pending, the Utah Court of Appeals decided In re Adoption of K.R.S., holding that a termination order issued by a district court is not immediately appealable when an underlying adoption petition remains unresolved, as it does not constitute a final judgment.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah reviewed the case and, for reasons articulated in Ross v. Kracht, 2025 UT 22, retained jurisdiction to hear further arguments on Father’s challenges to the termination order. The court issued an order requesting the parties to brief the merits of Father’s challenges to the termination order. View "In re Adoption of B.C." on Justia Law