Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A dispute arose from a business relationship between an individual and a contracting company, resulting in complex litigation in Texas. In 2012, the company sued the individual in Texas for fraud, and after a jury trial, a judgment was entered against the individual, awarding substantial compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees, and interest. While the individual appealed the Texas judgment, the company initiated proceedings in Alabama to domesticate the Texas judgment under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. The Baldwin Circuit Clerk issued a certificate of judgment, and the individual unsuccessfully sought to stay enforcement of the domesticated judgment pending the Texas appeal.The Texas intermediate appellate court affirmed the judgment, but in April 2024, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment and remanded for determination of a settlement credit and entry of a new judgment. In November 2024, the individual filed a motion under Rule 60(b)(5), Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, in Baldwin Circuit Court, seeking relief from the domesticated judgment on the basis that the underlying Texas judgment had been reversed. The circuit court denied the motion without a hearing, finding that Rule 60(b)(5) was not the appropriate procedural mechanism because it requires two separate judgments, and domestication does not create a second judgment independent of the foreign judgment.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed whether the circuit court exceeded its discretion in denying relief. The court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion, finding that Rule 60(b)(5) does not apply to a domesticated foreign judgment based solely on the reversal of the underlying foreign judgment, and the individual failed to show entitlement to relief under any other subsection of Rule 60(b). The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the order of the circuit court. View "Shumate v. Berry Contracting L.P." on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a university in Nebraska instituted a policy requiring all students to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by a specified deadline, with the only exemptions allowed for medical reasons or until a vaccine received full FDA approval. Religious exemptions were not permitted. Students who failed to comply were unenrolled and barred from campus, and some had holds placed on their accounts, preventing access to transcripts. One student complied with the mandate but suffered adverse effects and was medically exempted from further doses. Another student withdrew voluntarily before the deadline.After the university enforced the mandate, several students sought injunctive relief in the District Court for Douglas County to prevent their unenrollment, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The court denied relief, finding that any contract included the Emergency Use Authorization waiver agreements and that the students breached the contract by not being vaccinated after FDA approval. An initial appeal was dismissed by the Nebraska Supreme Court for lack of a final, appealable order. The students then consolidated their actions and filed an operative complaint alleging breach of implied contract, denial of due process, conversion, negligence, and violations of the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NCPA). The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and denied leave to amend.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo and found that the students plausibly alleged claims for breach of an implied contract and conversion, based on the university’s unilateral modification of conditions mid-semester and the withholding of transcripts. The court affirmed the dismissal of the negligence and NCPA claims, finding them preempted by the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, and held that the due process claim was abandoned on appeal. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the breach of contract and conversion claims. View "Ramaekers v. Creighton University" on Justia Law

An employee who suffered a workplace injury sued his employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier and related entities, alleging failure to authorize timely medical treatment and misrepresentation of his injuries to the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit in Hinds County, Mississippi, though the only resident defendant lived in Rankin County. The defendants, all nonresidents except one, removed the case to federal court, invoking diversity jurisdiction and asserting that the resident defendant was improperly joined. While in federal court, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies but did not raise a venue objection.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi found that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the defendants had not met their burden to show improper joinder and remanded the case to the Hinds County Circuit Court. After remand, and before filing an answer or conducting discovery, the defendants moved to transfer venue to Rankin County. The plaintiff argued that any venue objection was waived because it was not raised in federal court, and the Hinds County Circuit Court denied the motion to transfer based solely on waiver, relying on the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in Breal v. Downs Law Group.The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that the defendants did not waive their objection to venue by failing to raise it in federal court, as the issue of proper state-court venue was not available while the case was pending in federal court. The court distinguished the facts from those in Breal and clarified that the defense of improper venue was timely asserted at the first opportunity in state court. The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the trial court’s denial of the motion to transfer venue and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "Benchmark Insurance Company v. Harris" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between two competing billboard companies after one company constructed an electronic billboard in Gulfport, Mississippi. The company that operated existing billboards nearby filed suit, claiming that the new billboard violated a city ordinance enacted as part of a settlement resolving earlier litigation involving the city and the plaintiff. The defendant, along with related entities, countered with claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and challenged the plaintiff’s standing to bring the suit. The property owner on whose land the disputed billboard was constructed also became a party to the litigation.The litigation began in the Chancery Court of Harrison County, which denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, specifically rejecting their standing argument. The defendants removed the case to federal court, which remanded it and awarded costs to the plaintiff. After the defendants’ interlocutory appeal was denied by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, the case was transferred to circuit court. There, the court again denied summary judgment, and further unsuccessful dispositive motions were filed by the defendants. Over several years, the case involved multiple motions, removal, transfer, and appeals, with no claims proceeding to trial. Eventually, after the defendants transferred their interest in the billboard to a third party who settled with the plaintiff, the plaintiff moved to dismiss the case with prejudice. The Circuit Court of Harrison County granted the motion and denied the defendants’ subsequent request for attorney’s fees and costs, finding that much of the litigation expense was due to the defendants’ own aggressive litigation strategies, and declined to impose sanctions, concluding the suit was not frivolous.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the appeal, focusing on whether the trial court erred in denying attorney’s fees and sanctions to the defendants. The court held that the decision to award attorney’s fees or impose sanctions was within the trial court’s discretion, and found no abuse of discretion in denying fees or sanctions, affirming the dismissal with prejudice. View "Busby v. The Lamar Company, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action against the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, alleging that the agencies were arresting noncitizens without a warrant in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). After years of litigation, the parties entered into a Consent Decree in 2021, approved by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in 2022. The Decree required the agencies to issue a policy statement, train officers, and document compliance with § 1357(a)(2). It also outlined procedures for enforcement and modification if violations were alleged.Prior to the Decree’s scheduled expiration in May 2025, Plaintiffs moved to enforce its terms and to extend its duration, asserting substantial noncompliance by Defendants. While these motions were pending, a DHS official declared the Decree terminated. On October 7, 2025, the district court found Defendants had violated the Decree, extended its term by 118 days, and ordered compliance-related relief. Later, Plaintiffs sought release or alternative detention for hundreds of individuals allegedly arrested in violation of the Decree. On November 13, 2025, the district court ordered the release of 13 individuals whom both parties agreed were arrested unlawfully, and additionally ordered release or alternatives for approximately 442 “potential class members,” pending determinations of violation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed Defendants’ emergency motion to stay the district court’s October 7 and November 13 orders. The Seventh Circuit denied the request to stay the extension of the Consent Decree, holding that Defendants were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their argument that the extension violated 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1). However, the court granted the stay as to the November 13 release order for those arrested pursuant to I-200 warrants and for “potential class members” pending individualized determinations under the Decree. The ruling sets forth the standards for stays and clarifies the limitations of § 1252(f)(1) in the context of class-wide injunctive relief and consent decree enforcement. View "Castanon Nava v. Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between two siblings, Wayne Orkin and Lisa Albert, over the operation and ownership of a business called Boost Web SEO, Inc. Orkin managed the day-to-day business and generated all of its revenue, while Albert incorporated the company and was listed as its registered agent and officer. No written agreements clarified their roles, profit sharing, or compensation. In 2014, residual income from a payment processing arrangement was assigned to Boost Web, which both parties treated as company revenue for years. In 2021, after a breakdown in their relationship, Albert cut Orkin’s access to company funds and accused him of fraudulent activities in communications with a third-party vendor. Orkin then redirected company revenues to an account he controlled, prompting legal action.The litigation began in Massachusetts Superior Court, where Orkin (and his father) sued Albert and her son for various state-law claims, and Albert removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Boost Web intervened with a crossclaim against Orkin. After partial summary judgment, the remaining claims—Orkin’s defamation and related claims against Albert, and Boost Web’s conversion claim against Orkin—proceeded to a bench trial. The district court ruled for Albert on the defamation claim, finding her email was not defamatory or was protected as true, and for Boost Web on conversion, awarding it damages for funds Orkin took as personal expenses and for redirected residuals. The court also found Orkin in contempt for interfering with its orders and permanently enjoined him from pursuing related litigation in Florida.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court erred in dismissing Orkin’s defamation claim, finding that Albert’s email could be defamatory per se and remanded for further proceedings on truthfulness. It affirmed the conversion judgment regarding the redirected residuals but vacated the judgment concerning personal expenses, holding that Orkin was entitled to some compensation and remanded to determine the appropriate amount. The court vacated the contempt order and the permanent injunction, finding the previous orders did not unambiguously decide Boost Web’s ownership. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Orkin v. Albert" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, who worked as a truck driver for the defendants for approximately nine months in 2018, brought claims alleging that the defendants failed to provide required meal and rest breaks, failed to reimburse necessary work-related expenses, and violated California’s unfair competition law. The plaintiff also filed a representative claim for civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), all arising from his employment as a driver.The Superior Court of Sutter County denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification on the meal break, rest break, expense reimbursement, and unfair competition claims. In particular, the court found that the plaintiff failed to present substantial evidence of a common policy of discouraging breaks or of a community of interest among the proposed class members. The court relied on declarations from other drivers indicating they were not discouraged from taking breaks and noting variability in their experiences. The court also granted the defendants’ motion to strike the PAGA claim on manageability grounds, reasoning that adjudicating the claim would require individual testimony from 75 drivers and would be unmanageable.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed in part and reversed in part. It affirmed the denial of class certification for the rest break and expense reimbursement claims, finding insufficient evidence of commonality. However, it reversed the denial of class certification for the meal break and derivative unfair competition claims, holding that the trial court failed to apply the burden-shifting framework required by Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC when time records show missed or unrecorded meal breaks. Additionally, the appellate court reversed the order striking the PAGA claim, holding that trial courts lack inherent authority to strike PAGA claims solely based on manageability concerns, as clarified in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of whether the PAGA claim is preempted by federal law. View "Dieves v. Butte Sand Trucking Co." on Justia Law

Epic Games, a developer and operator of the Epic Games Store, sued Apple over its App Store practices, alleging violations of federal and California competition law. The dispute centered on Apple’s rules requiring developers to use Apple’s in-app payment system, which imposed a 30% commission, and its prohibition of developers directing users to other purchasing options outside the App Store. After a bench trial, the district court found Apple’s anti-steering provisions violated California’s Unfair Competition Law by preventing informed consumer choice but upheld Apple’s in-app payment system requirement for digital goods. The court issued an injunction barring Apple from restricting developers from including in their apps buttons, links, or other calls to action that direct users to alternative purchasing mechanisms.Following the injunction, Apple implemented a compliance plan involving a 27% commission on linked-out purchases and a series of restrictions on how developers could present external payment options, including limitations on button design, link placement, and user flow. Epic contested Apple’s compliance, arguing these measures still effectively prohibited alternative purchases. After holding multiple evidentiary hearings, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found Apple in civil contempt for failing to comply with the injunction, citing Apple’s bad faith and pretextual justifications. The district court imposed broad sanctions, including prohibiting any commission on linked-out purchases, restricting Apple’s ability to limit external links, and referring Apple for criminal investigation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s contempt findings and most of the resulting sanctions but found portions of the sanctions—particularly the blanket ban on commissions—overbroad and more punitive than coercive. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded those parts for further tailoring, clarified the scope of permissible developer link prominence, and declined to vacate the injunction or reassign the case. The court otherwise affirmed the district court’s orders. View "EPIC GAMES, INC. V. APPLE INC." on Justia Law

Russ and Debi Ropken hired a construction company to build a custom home based on an oral agreement. The contractor began work and sent invoices for services and materials, which the Ropkens paid until May 2022, after which they stopped making payments. In July 2022, the Ropkens removed the contractor from the site. The contractor then sent a demand letter for three unpaid invoices totaling $276,169, but the Ropkens refused to pay. The contractor sued to recover the unpaid amount.In the District Court of Park County, the Ropkens admitted owing at least $176,870.21. At the conclusion of a jury trial, the jury found there was a valid contract, the Ropkens had breached it, and awarded the contractor $258,587.70 in damages. The district court entered judgment for that amount and permitted the contractor to request prejudgment interest. The contractor timely filed for prejudgment interest, and the Ropkens objected. The district court found for the contractor, awarding $33,473.25 in prejudgment interest at a statutory rate, and calculated interest from the date of the demand letter. The Ropkens paid the judgment but appealed the prejudgment interest award.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed whether the district court erred in awarding prejudgment interest and whether due process was violated by granting interest without an evidentiary hearing. The court held that a district court may award prejudgment interest even when it is not the trier of fact, as prejudgment interest is a matter of law and not fact. The court found the claim was liquidated and the Ropkens had notice. The court also held that the Ropkens received adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, satisfying due process. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the award of prejudgment interest. View "Ropken v. Yj Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

Two individuals brought their dogs to a veterinary clinic for treatment. Dissatisfied with the care provided, both posted negative reviews on social media, detailing their experiences and criticizing the clinic’s practices. These posts were shared on multiple community Facebook pages and received significant engagement from the local community, including comments from others about the clinic. After the posters refused the clinic’s request to remove the reviews, the clinic filed a lawsuit for defamation per se against both individuals, alleging numerous defamatory statements.In the District Court for El Paso County, the defendants filed a special motion to dismiss under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that their posts were protected as speech on a public issue. The district court denied the motion, finding that the statements concerned a private business dispute and did not address matters of public interest. The court also found that, even if the statute applied, the clinic had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its claims. On appeal, a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals agreed that the posts provided consumer information relevant to the public but concluded they did not contribute to a broader public discussion, largely because they were motivated by personal animosity and aimed to harm the clinic’s business.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and determined that the lower courts had applied the wrong legal standard. The Supreme Court held that courts must use a two-step test to determine if speech is protected under the anti-SLAPP statute: first, whether an objective observer could reasonably understand the speech, in context, to be made in connection with a public issue or interest; and second, whether the speech contributed to public discussion of that issue. The court further held that the speaker’s motive is irrelevant to this analysis. The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and the matter was remanded for application of the correct standard. View "Lind-Barnett v. Tender Care Veterinary Ctr." on Justia Law