Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, thirty survivors of childhood sexual abuse, sought damages for negligence from the Holy See under a vicarious liability theory. They alleged that the Holy See promulgated a mandatory policy of secrecy that governed how its dioceses and bishops handled reports of sexual abuse by clerics. Plaintiffs claimed that bishops in New York failed to warn children and parents of the dangers posed by the accused clerics and failed to report suspected abuse to law enforcement, thus emboldening abusers and exposing children to harm.The District Court granted the Holy See’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The court concluded that the discretionary function exclusion from the FSIA’s tortious activity exception barred Plaintiffs’ claims. The court found that the bishops’ conduct was discretionary and susceptible to policy analysis, thus falling within the discretionary function exclusion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The appellate court agreed that the discretionary function exclusion applied, precluding federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over the claims against the Holy See. The court held that the bishops’ challenged conduct involved discretionary acts and that Plaintiffs failed to allege that the bishops’ conduct violated a mandatory policy. Additionally, the court found that the bishops’ conduct was susceptible to policy analysis, satisfying the second prong of the Berkovitz/Gaubert test. Therefore, the discretionary function exclusion barred the exercise of jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims against the Holy See. View "Blecher v. Holy See" on Justia Law

N.G.B., on behalf of her child J.B., filed a due process complaint against the New York City Department of Education (DOE) alleging that DOE failed to provide J.B. with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2019-2020 school year. An impartial hearing officer ruled in favor of N.G.B. Subsequently, N.G.B. sought attorneys' fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The district court found the claimed hourly rates and hours expended by N.G.B.'s counsel to be unreasonable and adjusted them. However, it also found that N.G.B. was substantially justified in rejecting a settlement offer from DOE, allowing her to recover fees and costs incurred post-rejection.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part N.G.B.'s motion for summary judgment. The court reduced the claimed hourly rates and hours but found that DOE's settlement offer did not account for significant work performed by N.G.B.'s counsel. The court concluded that N.G.B. was substantially justified in rejecting the offer, as it was based on outdated billing records and did not reflect the actual work done.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the district court applied the correct standard in determining substantial justification. The appellate court agreed that a prevailing parent under the IDEA can be substantially justified in rejecting a settlement offer if they have a good-faith, reasonable belief that the offer does not adequately compensate for the work performed. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's findings and reasoning, concluding that the rejection of DOE's offer was substantially justified. View "N.G.B. v. New York City Department of Education" on Justia Law

Lezah Roberts entered into a fixed-price contract with Advanced Building Design, a Maryland-based firm, to build a handicap-accessible addition to her home in the District of Columbia. The project, which began in 2017 and was expected to take six months, remained unfinished nearly two years later. The project went over budget due to price increases and change orders, and Advanced sought to recoup these overages from Roberts. After initially agreeing to cover some additional costs, Roberts eventually refused to pay further increases, leading Advanced to cease work on the project. Roberts then filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, alleging breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a claim under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) for unfair trade practices.The Superior Court granted Advanced’s motion to dismiss Roberts’s suit, citing a mandatory forum selection clause in the contract that designated Maryland as the exclusive forum for litigation. Roberts appealed, arguing that the forum selection clause was unenforceable because it conflicted with the CPPA and was unconscionable.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and disagreed with Roberts on both counts. The court held that the CPPA does not preclude parties from selecting their preferred forum and that the forum selection clause did not contravene public policy or demonstrate procedural or substantive unconscionability. Consequently, the court affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of Roberts’s complaint. View "Roberts v. Advanced Building Design" on Justia Law

The case involves several states and individual plaintiffs challenging an executive order issued by President Trump, which denies citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are temporarily or unlawfully present. The district court issued a universal preliminary injunction to prevent the implementation of the executive order. The defendants appealed, arguing that the states lack standing, the preliminary injunction was improperly issued, and its scope was too broad.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction, concluding that the states had standing and that the executive order likely violated both the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The court found that the states would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the plaintiffs. The district court issued a universal injunction, determining that a geographically limited injunction would not provide complete relief to the states.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the executive order was unconstitutional as it contradicted the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants citizenship to all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. The court found that the states had standing due to the economic harm they would suffer from the loss of federal reimbursements and the administrative burden of complying with the executive order. The court also concluded that the universal preliminary injunction was necessary to provide complete relief to the states, as a geographically limited injunction would not address the administrative and financial burdens imposed by the executive order. View "Washington v. Trump" on Justia Law

Owners of timeshare estates in a resort sued the County of Riverside, challenging the legality of the annual fee charged for separate property tax assessments. The owners argued that the fee exceeded the reasonable cost of providing the assessment, constituting a tax requiring voter approval, which had not been obtained.The Superior Court of Riverside County rejected the owners' argument and entered judgment for the County. The court ruled that the fee did not exceed the reasonable cost of the assessment and was not a tax requiring voter approval. The court also considered additional costs not included in the original fee calculation, such as costs related to assessment appeals and a new computer system.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court found that the County's methodology for setting the fee was flawed. The County had used the assessor's entire budget for a previous fiscal year to calculate the fee, which included costs unrelated to the separate timeshare assessments. The court also noted that the County had not provided evidence of the actual cost of the separate assessments and had improperly included costs for services provided to all property owners.The Court of Appeal concluded that the County did not meet its burden to prove that the fee was not a tax. The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the appropriate refund amount and to address the owners' requests for declaratory, injunctive, and writ relief. The court emphasized that the fee must be limited to the reasonable cost of the separate assessments and must bear a fair relationship to the benefits received by the timeshare estate owners. View "Scott v. County of Riverside" on Justia Law

Hamdi A. Mohamud, a plaintiff, sued Heather Weyker, a St. Paul police officer, for wrongful arrest. Weyker, while working as a cross-deputized federal agent on a federal task force, allegedly lied to protect a federal witness, Muna Abdulkadir, leading to Mohamud's arrest. Weyker falsely claimed that Mohamud and others were trying to intimidate Abdulkadir, resulting in their arrest for witness tampering. Mohamud spent about 25 months in custody before the charges were dismissed.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota previously reviewed the case. Mohamud's claims were based on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied Mohamud's requests for limited discovery and to amend her complaint, concluding that further discovery would be futile and that the proposed amendment would not change the outcome. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Weyker, following the reasoning from a similar case, Yassin v. Weyker, which held that Weyker did not act under color of state law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Weyker acted under federal authority, not state law, when she protected a federal witness in a federal investigation. The court found that the new facts alleged by Mohamud did not change the analysis from the Yassin case. The court also concluded that further discovery would not have made a difference and upheld the district court's denial of Mohamud's discovery request. View "Mohamud v. Weyker" on Justia Law

Bernard Perez, an ophthalmologist, entered into a disability insurance contract with MONY Life Insurance Company in 1988. After being diagnosed with throat cancer in 2011, Perez began receiving monthly disability benefits. MONY later suspected Perez of dishonesty in his disability claims and financial information, leading to the discontinuation of payments in February 2018. MONY sued Perez for unjust enrichment, and Perez counterclaimed for breach of contract.The Middle District of Florida held a nine-day trial where evidence showed Perez's deceitful conduct, including misrepresenting his ownership in his medical practice and overstating his physical ailments. The jury found in favor of MONY on the unjust enrichment claim, awarding $388,000, and rejected Perez's breach of contract counterclaim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that under Florida law, an unjust enrichment claim cannot proceed when an express contract covers the same subject matter. Therefore, the district court erred in allowing the unjust enrichment claim to go to the jury. The Eleventh Circuit set aside the jury's verdict on this claim and directed the district court to vacate the judgment awarding MONY $448,930.06.Regarding Perez's breach of contract counterclaim, the Eleventh Circuit found that the district court erred in failing to interpret the ambiguous term "acceptable proof of loss" in the insurance contract. However, this error was deemed harmless because the evidence overwhelmingly showed Perez's dishonesty in his proofs of loss. Thus, the jury's verdict against Perez on his breach of contract counterclaim was affirmed. The court also affirmed the district court's evidentiary rulings and denial of sanctions. View "MONY Life Insurance Co. v. Perez" on Justia Law

Virginia Giuffre, a victim of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking, filed a defamation lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell, an Epstein associate, in 2015. Giuffre alleged that Maxwell defamed her by calling her statements implicating Maxwell in Epstein’s trafficking “obvious lies.” The case involved extensive discovery, resulting in numerous documents being sealed. The case was settled in 2017, but various third parties, including the Miami Herald Media Company and reporter Julie Brown, sought to unseal the documents.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge Preska) reviewed the sealed documents following a remand from the Second Circuit in Brown v. Maxwell. The district court unsealed many documents but declined to unseal others, leading to the current appeal. The district court held that undecided motions rendered moot by the settlement were not judicial documents subject to public access. It also found that certain deposition transcripts and documents involving third parties' privacy interests outweighed the presumption of public access.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in categorically excluding undecided motions from being considered judicial documents. The appellate court clarified that the judicial nature of a document is determined at the time of filing, regardless of subsequent mootness. The court also found that the district court erred in giving a "barely cognizable" presumption of access to Giuffre's Florida deposition transcript and in failing to treat filings related to sealing or unsealing motions as judicial documents.The Second Circuit vacated the district court's orders regarding the undecided motions and the Florida deposition transcript and remanded for further review. The court affirmed the district court's decisions in all other respects. View "Giuffre v. Maxwell" on Justia Law

The Vinales family leased a home at Randolph Air Force Base, managed by AETC II Privatized Housing, LLC, and other associated entities. They experienced issues with the home's condition, including mold and asbestos, which they claimed led to health problems and property damage. They sued the housing providers for breach of contract, fraud, and other claims, seeking damages and attorneys' fees.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment for the defendants on most claims, citing the federal enclave doctrine, which limits applicable law to federal law and pre-cession state law. The court dismissed the fraud claim for lack of evidence and denied the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees. The breach of contract claim proceeded to trial, where the jury awarded the plaintiffs over $90,000 in damages. The magistrate judge denied the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the application of the federal enclave doctrine, which barred most of the plaintiffs' claims. It upheld the dismissal of the fraud claim, agreeing that the plaintiffs failed to identify actionable fraudulent statements. The court also affirmed the denial of attorneys' fees, finding no legal basis for the award. The exclusion of certain evidence at trial was deemed not to be an abuse of discretion. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's damages awards for personal property and diminution in rental value. Finally, the court held that the jury instructions were proper and did not create substantial doubt about the jury's guidance. The judgment of the magistrate judge was affirmed. View "Vinales v. AETC II Privatized Housing, LLC" on Justia Law

James Marion Del Duca filed a complaint against his ex-wife, Aria Skydancer, alleging Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED). The Eighteenth Judicial District Court for Gallatin County dismissed his claim with prejudice on Skydancer’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Del Duca appealed the dismissal, raising four issues: the court's error in concluding he failed to state a claim, the dismissal with prejudice, the denial of his request to amend his complaint, and the court's failure to explain its ruling.The District Court dismissed Del Duca's complaint without providing a detailed explanation for its decision. The court's order simply stated that the motion to dismiss was granted and the request for attorney fees was denied. Del Duca's motion to amend his complaint was also denied without explanation. Del Duca argued that the court erred by not specifying the grounds for its ruling, as required by Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(3).The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and found that the District Court failed to provide sufficient particularity in its order to apprise the parties and the appellate court of the rationale underlying the ruling. The Supreme Court noted that the District Court's failure to explain its decision left the parties and the appellate court to speculate about the reasons for the dismissal and the denial of the motion to amend. The Supreme Court vacated the District Court's order and remanded the case with instructions for the District Court to provide an order that specifies the grounds for its rulings, consistent with Rule 52(a)(3). The District Court must clarify whether it converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and provide reasons for dismissing Del Duca's claims and denying his motion to amend the complaint. View "Del Duca v. Skydancer" on Justia Law