Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Katherine Fratello loaned Russell A. Mann $60,000 under a secured promissory note, with Mann agreeing to make monthly payments starting October 15, 2023. Mann provided a cashier’s check for $3,500 on September 29, 2023, claiming it covered the first two payments and other loans. Fratello disputed the validity of the check and considered Mann in default for missing the first two payments. She served Mann with a default notice on November 29, 2023, and filed a complaint on January 5, 2024, alleging Mann’s failure to make the required payments.Mann counterclaimed, asserting that Fratello breached their contract by not cashing the cashier’s check, which he claimed covered the first two payments. He argued that Fratello’s refusal to accept the payment and the subsequent default notice were unlawful. Fratello filed a special motion to dismiss Mann’s counterclaim under Maine’s anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that the counterclaim was based on her protected petitioning activity, namely the default notice and the complaint.The Superior Court (Cumberland County) denied Fratello’s special motion to dismiss, concluding that the default notice was not petitioning activity and that Mann’s counterclaim was not based on Fratello’s filing of the complaint or any other petitioning activity. Fratello appealed the decision.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion de novo and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that Mann’s counterclaim was based on Fratello’s refusal to accept the cashier’s check, not on her petitioning activity. Therefore, Fratello did not meet her burden to demonstrate that Mann’s counterclaim was based on protected petitioning activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. View "Fratello v. Mann" on Justia Law

Following Hurricane Ida in 2021, Terrebonne Parish requested assistance from Lafayette Utilities Systems (LUS) to help restore power in Houma, Louisiana. LUS, in turn, requested help from the City of Wilson, North Carolina. Agreements were signed to facilitate emergency assistance, and the City of Wilson dispatched employees to Louisiana. Due to a shortage of hotels in Houma, the employees stayed in Lafayette and commuted daily. Kevin Worrell, a City of Wilson employee, was involved in a vehicle collision while driving from Houma to Lafayette, resulting in injuries to Edward and Linda Breaux and Jessie and Vickie Blanchard.The plaintiffs filed separate negligence lawsuits in Louisiana state court, which were removed to the federal district court in the Western District of Louisiana. The cases were consolidated, and the defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity under the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act. The district court granted summary judgment, finding statutory immunity, and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging the district court's interpretation of the Act's immunity provision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted the need to interpret the Louisiana emergency preparedness law and expressed doubt about its ability to make a reliable Erie guess. Consequently, the court certified two questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court: (1) whether an employee of a city from another state working under an emergency assistance agreement is a "representative" of Louisiana or its political subdivisions, and (2) whether an individual providing emergency assistance is "engaging in emergency preparedness and recovery activities" while commuting from the recovery site to lodging. The Fifth Circuit will resolve the case based on the Louisiana Supreme Court's guidance. View "Breaux v. Worrell" on Justia Law

Jacquelin Glassie filed a claim against the estate of her father, Donelson Glassie, alleging he breached a property settlement agreement by failing to adequately fund a trust established for her benefit. The executor of Donelson's estate, Paul Doucette, disallowed the claim, leading to a lawsuit in the Superior Court. After Jacquelin's death, her sister Alison, as executrix of Jacquelin's estate, continued the lawsuit. The Superior Court initially granted summary judgment for the estate, but the Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trustee of the trust, Wells Fargo, was the proper plaintiff. Wells Fargo then assigned its claims to Alison.A jury trial in the Superior Court resulted in a verdict for Alison, awarding her $1,164,138.43 in damages, which, with prejudgment interest, totaled $2,856,572.45. The jury also rejected the estate's counterclaim that Jacquelin had forfeited her interest under Donelson's will. The defendant, Doucette, filed a notice of appeal but failed to timely order the trial transcripts, leading Alison to move to dismiss the appeal.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case after the Superior Court granted Alison's motion to dismiss the appeal due to Doucette's failure to timely order the transcripts and follow proper procedures for an extension. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that Doucette's reasons for the delay, including hopes for mediation and cost-saving, did not constitute excusable neglect. The Court noted the extensive litigation history and the trial justice's efforts to move the case forward, concluding that the deadlines were necessary and should be adhered to. View "Glassie v. Doucette" on Justia Law

Laura Milus, on behalf of herself and her minor son, D.L.J., filed a wrongful death action against Sun Valley Company after her husband died from colliding with snowmaking equipment while skiing at Sun Valley Ski Resort. Milus claimed that Sun Valley breached its duties under Idaho Code section 6-1103(2) and (6) by not properly marking the equipment and failing to post a notice about snowmaking operations.The District Court of the Fifth Judicial District of Idaho granted summary judgment in favor of Sun Valley, concluding that the company met its duty under section 6-1103(2) by placing yellow padding on the equipment and had no duty under section 6-1103(6) because the equipment was not actively discharging snow. The court did not address Sun Valley's argument that Milus' claims were barred by section 6-1106, which states that skiers assume the risk of injury from plainly visible or marked snowmaking equipment.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and held that ski area operators are held to an ordinarily prudent person standard of care when performing duties under the Ski Area Liability Act. The court found that Milus failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Sun Valley met this standard with the yellow padding. However, the court also held that there was a genuine issue of material fact about whether Sun Valley posted the required notice under section 6-1103(6).Despite this, the court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Milus' claims were barred by section 6-1106 because Mr. Milus assumed the risk of injury from the plainly marked snowmaking equipment. The court denied Sun Valley's request for attorney fees on appeal, as both parties prevailed on some arguments. View "Milus v. Sun Valley Company" on Justia Law

James Cooper was injured in a car accident in August 2019 while riding as a passenger in a car owned by Rick Huffman. Both Cooper and Huffman were employees of Pison Management, LLC, and were driving to a jobsite for work. Cooper's injuries exceeded the third-party driver's insurance limits, so he sought underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage under Pison's commercial automobile policy issued by Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Company. The policy provided $1 million in liability coverage for two vehicles owned by Pison and a class of non-owned vehicles but only offered UIM coverage for the owned vehicles. Erie denied Cooper's claim for UIM coverage.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of Cooper, holding that West Virginia Code § 33-6-31 required Erie to offer UIM coverage for all vehicles covered by the liability policy, including non-owned vehicles. The court issued a declaratory judgment that Cooper was entitled to $1 million in UIM coverage. Erie appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and certified a question of law to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. The West Virginia court concluded that West Virginia Code § 33-6-31 did not require Erie to offer UIM coverage for non-owned vehicles. The court determined that Cooper was not an "insured" under the statute because Pison, the named insured, did not own the vehicle in which Cooper was riding and thus could not consent to its use for UIM purposes.Applying the West Virginia court's interpretation, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment in favor of Cooper and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Erie. View "Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Company v. Cooper" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Kathleen Keaten and her daughter Delaney Keaten, lived in a Section 8 housing complex managed by the defendants, Terra Management Group, LLC, and Littleton Main Street LLC. They complained about physical ailments due to suspected methamphetamine fumes from the apartment below. The defendants evicted the tenant in the lower unit but failed to preserve evidence from the apartment. The Keatens later filed a lawsuit under the Colorado Premises Liability Act, alleging permanent injuries from the fumes.The Arapahoe County District Court held a bench trial and ruled in favor of the Keatens, awarding significant damages. The court found that the chemical fumes from the lower unit caused the Keatens' injuries, relying on expert testimony and meth residue levels. The court also drew an adverse inference against the defendants for failing to preserve evidence from the lower unit.The defendants appealed, and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that the defendants should have known about their potential liability and upheld the adverse inference sanction. The defendants then petitioned the Supreme Court of Colorado for certiorari review.The Supreme Court of Colorado held that a duty to preserve evidence arises when a party knows or should know that litigation is pending or reasonably foreseeable. The court concluded that any error in the trial court's adverse inference sanction was harmless because the causation finding was based on independent evidence. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "Terra Mgmt. Grp. v. Keaten" on Justia Law

Darren Markley sued his employer, US Bank, in federal court, alleging age discrimination under federal law and wrongful termination under Colorado state law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of US Bank on the federal claim and dismissed the state law claim without prejudice, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Markley did not appeal the dismissal of the state law claim or request the district court to reconsider it under diversity jurisdiction, despite knowing that diversity jurisdiction existed.Markley then filed his state law claim in the Denver District Court. US Bank removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and moved to dismiss the claim, arguing claim preclusion. The district court granted the motion, holding that Markley could have pursued his state law claim in the original federal lawsuit by asserting diversity jurisdiction. The court concluded that his failure to do so precluded him from bringing the claim in a new case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that claim preclusion applied because Markley could have litigated his state law claim in the prior federal lawsuit by asserting diversity jurisdiction. The court emphasized that a final judgment on the merits in the earlier action, which included the resolution of the federal claim, precluded Markley from bringing the state law claim in a new lawsuit. The court also found that the district court did not violate the party presentation principle by addressing the issue of diversity jurisdiction, as it was within the court's power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law. View "Markley v. U.S. Bank National Association" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between a nurse, the plaintiff, and her former employer, the defendant hospital. The plaintiff alleged that her termination was in retaliation for her complaints about safety issues. She brought five claims for relief, but only three statutory claims went to the jury: whistle-blower retaliation, unlawful retaliation, and unlawful employment practice. The jury found in favor of the defendant on the first two claims and in favor of the plaintiff on the third claim. The trial court entered a general judgment reflecting these verdicts.The defendant appealed the general judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in giving a "cat's paw" jury instruction, which allowed the jury to impute the bias of the plaintiff's coworkers to the defendant. The Court of Appeals agreed that the instruction was improper and reversed and remanded for a new trial. The trial court then vacated the general judgment and ordered a retrial of all three claims, including those on which the defendant had prevailed. The defendant appealed this order, but the Appellate Commissioner dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeals denied reconsideration.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reviewed the case to determine whether the trial court's order was appealable under ORS 19.205(3). The court concluded that, after the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the general judgment, there was no longer a general judgment in place. Therefore, the trial court's order determining the scope of the retrial was not an order made "after a general judgment" and was not immediately appealable under ORS 19.205(3). The orders of the Court of Appeals were affirmed. View "Crosbie v. Asante" on Justia Law

MCS Industries, Inc. (MCS), a shipper, filed a complaint with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) against MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. (Mediterranean), alleging violations of the Shipping Act of 1984. MCS claimed that Mediterranean failed to provide agreed cargo space, forced MCS to pay higher rates on the spot market during the Covid-19 pandemic, refused to deal with MCS, discriminated against shippers at certain ports, and engaged in unreasonable business practices. Mediterranean initially provided some discovery material but later refused further requests, citing jurisdictional issues and Swiss law restrictions on document production.The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ordered Mediterranean to comply with discovery requests, but Mediterranean continued to resist, arguing that the FMC lacked jurisdiction and that Swiss law precluded compliance. After multiple warnings and attempts to resolve the discovery issue, including a failed Hague Convention request, the ALJ issued a default judgment against Mediterranean, ordering it to pay reparations to MCS. The FMC affirmed the default judgment, remanding only to recalculate reparations and consider sanctions for delay.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the FMC had jurisdiction over the complaint, as the allegations involved violations of the Shipping Act, not merely breach of contract claims. The court also found that the FMC did not abuse its discretion in issuing a default judgment. The court noted that Mediterranean's refusal to comply with discovery orders prejudiced MCS, burdened the FMC, and undermined the authority of the Commission. The court denied Mediterranean's petitions for review, affirming the FMC's decision. View "MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. v. Federal Maritime Commission" on Justia Law

Carol Wagner, the plaintiff, claims entitlement to a surviving spousal share from the estate of John Chislett, her former husband. She seeks to rescind a quitclaim deed she granted to the decedent, alleging it was obtained through fraud. Additionally, she challenges the validity of a 1974 Dominican Republic divorce decree obtained by the decedent, asserting it is invalid under New Hampshire law. The defendants, Sally Chislett, Kevin Chislett, and Wai Kwan Chislett, contest her claims.The Circuit Court (Kissinger, J.) ruled against the plaintiff, determining that her rescission action was barred by the statute of limitations and that her challenge to the divorce decree was barred by laches due to her forty-seven-year delay in raising the issue. Consequently, the court dismissed her claims.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. The court upheld the lower court's decision, affirming that the statute of limitations for actions involving real property, RSA 508:2, applied to the plaintiff's rescission claim, which had expired. The court also agreed with the lower court's application of the doctrine of laches, finding that the plaintiff's delay in challenging the divorce decree was unreasonable and prejudicial to the defendants. The court noted that the plaintiff had remarried in reliance on the divorce decree and waited nearly five decades to contest its validity, during which time both her second husband and the decedent had died.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claims, concluding that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court's decision effectively barred the plaintiff from claiming a surviving spousal share from the decedent's estate. View "Wagner v. Chislett" on Justia Law