Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A dispute arose between a manufacturer of construction equipment and its distributor over a 2012 distribution agreement. The distributor alleged that the manufacturer breached the agreement by selling covered equipment directly to third parties, bypassing the distributor. The manufacturer, in turn, counterclaimed that the distributor failed to pay amounts due under a 2016 rental agreement and for various purchases made between 2016 and 2017. Both parties sought damages and prejudgment interest related to their respective claims and counterclaims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, after the completion of discovery, granted summary judgment for the distributor on liability for its breach-of-contract claim, leaving damages to be determined by a jury. The court also granted summary judgment for the manufacturer as to both liability and damages on its breach-of-contract counterclaim. A jury awarded the distributor substantial damages for the manufacturer’s breach. The district court denied the manufacturer’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial or remittitur, and later awarded prejudgment interest to the distributor, despite the manufacturer’s objection that the request was untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed whether the distributor’s motion for prejudgment interest was timely. The court held that the initial judgment entered by the district court was not sufficiently final, as it omitted reference to the manufacturer’s successful counterclaim and the award of prejudgment interest. As a result, the 28-day deadline for a Rule 59(e) motion was not triggered until a later, comprehensive, final judgment was entered. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s award of prejudgment interest to the distributor. View "Alessi Equip., Inc. v. Am. Piledriving Equip., Inc." on Justia Law

The case concerns three heirs of Paul von Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, a Jewish German art collector persecuted by the Nazi regime, who seek to recover Vincent van Gogh’s painting “Sunflowers.” Mendelssohn-Bartholdy was forced to liquidate his art collection in the 1930s due to Nazi policies. The painting was sold through a Parisian dealer, later purchased at auction in London in 1987 by Yasuda Fire and Marine Insurance Company, which subsequently became Sompo Japan Insurance. The painting was exhibited briefly in Chicago and Amsterdam in 2001–2002 before returning to Japan, where it remains on display.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Sompo Holdings and its affiliates, seeking the painting’s return or compensation, alleging various state and federal claims. The district court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims because the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act (HEAR Act) does not create a federal cause of action, and the plaintiffs had not shown a conflict between state law and federal policy to justify federal common law claims. For the state law claims, the district court held (following a Pennsylvania district court’s reasoning in Holtzman) that the HEAR Act’s extension of limitations periods could confer federal question jurisdiction, but ultimately dismissed these claims for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants, finding insufficient connection to Illinois.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the federal claims failed for lack of a federal cause of action or basis for federal common law. As for the state law claims, the Seventh Circuit declined to address subject matter jurisdiction and instead affirmed the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding the defendants’ contacts with Illinois were unrelated to the plaintiffs’ claims. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying leave to file a further amended complaint. View "Schoeps v. Sompo Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

An incarcerated individual at Corcoran State Prison hired an attorney to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus, both in state and potentially federal court, for a total fee of $35,000. The attorney did not file the petition as agreed, leading the client to sue for breach of contract. Throughout the proceedings, the plaintiff notified the Superior Court of Orange County multiple times that he was incarcerated, requested remote appearances, and actively participated by filing necessary court documents, including a case management statement and fee waiver application. Despite these efforts, the plaintiff failed to appear for the scheduled trial, and the attorney attended and testified that the plaintiff was incarcerated.After the plaintiff's failure to appear at trial, the Superior Court of Orange County dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, stating it was unaware of the plaintiff’s incarceration until the day of trial. The plaintiff appealed this dismissal, arguing that the court should have recognized his incarceration and taken additional steps before terminating the case.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the dismissal. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the lawsuit without first issuing an order to show cause or ensuring that the plaintiff had meaningful access to the court. The court emphasized that incarcerated, indigent litigants must be afforded meaningful access to civil courts, and that dismissal is a drastic remedy reserved for rare circumstances. The appellate court reversed the judgment of dismissal and remanded the case, instructing the trial court to provide the plaintiff with meaningful access to the court and to communicate with prison officials as necessary. The plaintiff may recover costs on appeal, subject to further determination by the trial court. View "Park v. Guisti" on Justia Law

Riverdale Mills Corporation operates a wire mesh manufacturing facility in Northbridge, Massachusetts. In 2019, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) conducted two investigations at Riverdale’s facility, which resulted in citations alleging violations of safety and health standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Riverdale contested these citations, and after a consolidated hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) in 2021, the ALJ affirmed three citation items while vacating or withdrawing the others.Subsequently, in December 2023, Riverdale applied to the ALJ for recovery of attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). To establish eligibility for this recovery, Riverdale submitted its 2019 balance sheet as evidence, along with a motion to seal the document due to alleged confidential business information. The Secretary of Labor opposed the motion, arguing Riverdale had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for sealing. After considering submissions from both parties, the ALJ denied Riverdale’s motion to seal, applying balancing tests from D.C. Circuit and First Circuit case law and concluding Riverdale had not shown compelling reasons to overcome the presumption of public access. Riverdale attempted to appeal this denial to the OSHRC Commission, but the Commission automatically dismissed the appeal for lack of quorum.Riverdale then sought interlocutory review from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The First Circuit assumed interlocutory jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine and reviewed the ALJ’s denial for abuse of discretion. It held that Riverdale had waived certain arguments by not raising them earlier and determined the ALJ did not abuse her discretion in denying the motion to seal, finding Riverdale failed to meet its burden to justify sealing the balance sheet. The petition for review was denied. View "Riverdale Mills Corp. v. Chavez-DeRemer" on Justia Law

OneTaste, Inc., a company founded in 2004 that promoted “orgasmic meditation,” sued Netflix for defamation in 2023. The lawsuit was based on a Netflix documentary that featured allegations from former employee Ayries Blanck, who claimed she was sexually assaulted and abused in connection with her employment and participation in OneTaste’s activities. The documentary included statements from Blanck’s sister and other former associates, as well as references to earlier media investigations and reports about alleged exploitative and abusive practices at OneTaste. OneTaste asserted that Netflix published false statements with actual malice, despite being provided with information it claimed disproved the allegations.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed Netflix’s special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16). Netflix argued its conduct was protected activity and that OneTaste could not demonstrate a probability of prevailing, especially on the element of actual malice. After considering the pleadings and both parties’ evidence, the trial court concluded that OneTaste failed to present sufficient evidence that Netflix published the challenged statements with actual malice. The court also found OneTaste’s additional evidence did not establish that Netflix was aware of probable falsity or recklessly disregarded the truth. As a result, the court granted Netflix’s motion to strike the complaint.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that OneTaste did not meet its burden to show a probability of prevailing on the defamation claim because it failed to produce evidence of actual malice by Netflix. The court also rejected OneTaste’s constitutional and public policy challenges to the anti-SLAPP statute and denied its requests for judicial notice of materials not considered by the trial court. View "Onetaste Incorporated v. Netflix, Inc." on Justia Law

A former employee filed a labor claim against her employer and the employer’s business, seeking unpaid overtime and other compensation. The Labor Commissioner awarded her over $74,000. The decision was served by mail, triggering a 15-day deadline for the employer to appeal to the superior court and to either post an undertaking or seek a waiver of that requirement. The employer retained a third-party filing service, which attempted to file the appeal and waiver motion electronically on the last permissible day. The filing was rejected by the court clerk, and the documents were filed in person the following day, one day late.The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco determined that the employer’s appeal and waiver motion were untimely. The court found that the statutory deadline for appealing a Labor Commissioner decision is mandatory and jurisdictional, and that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the late filings. The employer argued that the deadline should be equitably tolled due to the filing service’s error, but the trial court rejected this argument.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court held that the statutory deadline for appealing a Labor Commissioner decision and for seeking a waiver of the undertaking requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional, and cannot be extended for reasons such as mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. The only exception is for fraud, which was not alleged. The court also held that the tolling provision in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 does not apply to notices of appeal from Labor Commissioner decisions. The court affirmed the superior court’s order dismissing the appeal as untimely. View "Dobarro v. Kim" on Justia Law

A resident of Madison County, Mississippi, received medical treatment at a hospital in Hinds County and later filed a claim with her health insurer, a foreign corporation doing business in the state. The insurer partially paid the claim but later, through its third-party administrator, asserted the hospital was out of network before eventually admitting it was in network. Despite repeated efforts by the insured to resolve the dispute, the insurer failed to pay the remaining balance or provide an explanation, ultimately stating the claim was untimely. The insured then sued the insurer and the administrator in Hinds County, seeking damages for breach of contract and related claims.The Circuit Court of Hinds County denied the insurer’s motion to dismiss or transfer venue to Madison County. Only the insurer sought and was granted an interlocutory appeal from this order. The administrator did not join the appeal.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case, applying de novo review to the interpretation of the venue statute and abuse of discretion to the trial court’s venue ruling. The Court held that, under Mississippi Code Section 11-11-3(1)(a)(i), venue is proper where a substantial act or omission by the defendant caused the injury for which the plaintiff seeks redress. The Court found that the medical treatment in Hinds County was not a substantial event caused by the insurer that resulted in the alleged injury; rather, the alleged injury arose from the insurer’s acts or omissions related to the insurance contract, which were not tied to Hinds County. The Court overruled prior precedent to the extent it conflicted with this interpretation and concluded that venue was proper in Madison County. The judgment of the Hinds County Circuit Court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings in Madison County. View "National Health Insurance Company v. Lever" on Justia Law

A patient underwent a laparoscopic bilateral tubal ligation and endometrial ablation performed by a physician at a women’s clinic. About a week after the procedure, she experienced severe abdominal pain and was hospitalized for sepsis. An exploratory surgery revealed a perforated small bowel, which was surgically repaired. The patient subsequently recovered.The patient filed a medical negligence lawsuit in the Hinds County Circuit Court against the clinic and the physician, attaching the required certificate of expert consultation to her complaint. The defendants moved for summary judgment, supporting their motion with an expert affidavit. The plaintiff did not timely file an expert affidavit or testimony in response. On the day before the scheduled summary judgment hearing, she filed a response without any expert affidavit. The circuit court denied the summary judgment motion and granted her an additional thirty days to obtain an expert affidavit. After she submitted an expert affidavit and a second hearing was held, the circuit court again denied summary judgment, finding that the competing expert affidavits created a genuine issue of material fact.On interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the circuit court’s denial of summary judgment de novo and its grant of additional time for abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that, in medical malpractice cases, a plaintiff must produce sworn expert testimony to survive summary judgment. The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide such testimony before the initial hearing and that the circuit court abused its discretion by granting additional time without a specific finding of diligence or good faith. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment and rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Lakeland Premier Women's Clinic, PLLC v. Jackson" on Justia Law

A woman with COVID-19 and multiple underlying health conditions was admitted to a hospital and then transferred to a skilled nursing facility for ongoing treatment. During her stay at the facility, she was under the care of a physician who prescribed various treatments for her COVID-19 infection. Despite these interventions, her condition deteriorated, and she developed additional complications, including pressure wounds and dehydration. After being discharged from the facility without hospice or home health arrangements, she was readmitted to the hospital, where her condition continued to decline. She was eventually discharged home under hospice care and died shortly thereafter. Her surviving spouse filed a wrongful death lawsuit, alleging that the facility and physician were negligent in her care.The District Court of Garfield County granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that they were immune from liability under both the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparation (PREP) Act and Oklahoma’s COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Limited Liability Act. The district court reasoned that the acts and omissions in question were incident to the provision of care for a COVID-19 patient and thus fell within the scope of the immunity statutes. The plaintiff appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case de novo. It held that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of immunity. The court found that the defendants failed to provide evidence establishing a causal relationship between the administration or use of covered countermeasures and the plaintiff’s injuries, as required for PREP Act immunity. Additionally, the court determined that the defendants did not meet the evidentiary burden to show the requisite impact under the state COVID-19 Act, and that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding gross negligence. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "AUSTBO v. GREENBRIAR" on Justia Law

Two private-citizen members of a federally created commission, along with several federal officials, were involved in planning the United States’ 250th anniversary celebrations. The commission was established by Congress and included both federal officials and private citizens appointed by congressional leaders. After a dispute over leadership and the selection of an administrative secretariat, three commission members made public statements criticizing the commission’s Chairperson and Executive Director, alleging mismanagement and other misconduct. The Chairperson and Executive Director claimed these statements damaged their reputations and led to their removal, prompting them to file a tort action—including defamation and related claims—against the three members in Pennsylvania state court.After the complaint was filed, the Attorney General certified that the defendants were acting within the scope of their federal employment, removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and substituted the United States as the defendant under the Westfall Act. The District Court determined that the commission members qualified as federal employees, that their statements were made within the scope of their employment, and that discovery was unnecessary. The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss, as the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) does not waive sovereign immunity for defamation claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The Third Circuit held that the commission is a federal agency under the FTCA and Westfall Act, and that its private-citizen members are “employees of the government” for purposes of those statutes. The court further held that the defendants’ statements were made within the scope of their employment and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery. The dismissal was affirmed because sovereign immunity barred the plaintiffs’ claims. View "Giordano v. Hohns" on Justia Law