Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In 2021, the United States seized over 700,000 barrels of crude oil from two tankers in the Mediterranean Sea. The government alleged that the oil belonged to the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), an entity it claimed materially supported the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. The government further asserted that NIOC’s activities included supplying, transporting, and selling oil to benefit the IRGC, which used these resources to fund terrorist activities targeting the United States. A Turkish commodities trading company, Aspan Petrokimya Co., claimed ownership of the seized oil and sought to recover the proceeds from its sale.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially dismissed the government’s forfeiture complaints without prejudice, finding that the government had not adequately pled that NIOC’s sale of oil affected foreign commerce. The government then filed an Amended Complaint consolidating the cases and providing additional factual detail. The district court denied Aspan’s renewed motion to dismiss, concluding that the amended allegations sufficiently addressed the jurisdictional element and all other statutory requirements. To expedite appellate review, Aspan admitted the complaint’s factual allegations, consented to judgment on the pleadings, and appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss de novo. The appellate court held that the government needed only to allege NIOC’s ownership of the property at the time of the offense, not at the time of seizure. The court also found that the Amended Complaint plausibly alleged that NIOC’s material support of the IRGC substantially affected foreign commerce, and that NIOC’s actions were calculated to influence the U.S. government. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v. All Petroleum-Product Cargo Onboard the M/T Arina" on Justia Law

A fifteen-year-old was involved in a physical altercation with a thirteen-year-old after getting off a school bus, during which he struck the younger student and kicked him once. Tragically, the victim died from his injuries. The defendant was subsequently indicted and convicted in the Superior Court of Cherokee County for felony murder, aggravated assault, and aggravated battery. He received a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia, and his federal habeas petition was denied, with the denial affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.Years later, the defendant filed a motion to correct a void sentence, arguing that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment because a life sentence was grossly disproportionate to an unintentional killing committed by a juvenile during a fistfight. The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that the sentence was within the statutory range and thus not void, and concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the claim. The court also suggested the case did not meet the rare threshold for an Eighth Amendment disproportionality challenge but ultimately dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and held that a proportionality challenge under the Eighth Amendment is a cognizable void sentence claim that may be raised at any time, not just within the statutory time frame for sentence modification. The Court determined that the trial court erred in dismissing the motion for lack of jurisdiction, vacated the dismissal order, and remanded the case for the trial court to consider the merits of the Eighth Amendment claim. View "MILLER v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Several individuals alleged that Google collected and misused the private browsing data of Chrome users who utilized Incognito mode, despite Google’s representations about the privacy of this feature. In June 2020, five plaintiffs brought a putative class action on behalf of these users, seeking both injunctive relief and damages. After extensive discovery, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California certified a class for injunctive relief but denied certification for a damages class, finding the plaintiffs had not shown that common issues predominated over individual ones.Following the denial of damages class certification, the named plaintiffs sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit under Rule 23(f), but the petition was denied. The case proceeded, and as trial approached, the parties settled: Google agreed to change its policies, the named plaintiffs would arbitrate their individual damages claims, and they waived their rights to appeal the denial of damages class certification. The settlement explicitly stated that absent class members were not releasing damages claims or appellate rights. Several months after the settlement, a group of 185 Chrome users, referred to as the Salcido plaintiffs, moved to intervene to preserve absent class members’ appellate rights regarding damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the intervention motion. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the intervention motion untimely. Applying the circuit’s traditional three-part test for intervention—considering the stage of the proceedings, prejudice to other parties, and the reason for and length of delay—the court found that intervention at this late stage would prejudice the existing parties, that the delay was unjustified, and that the timing weighed against intervention. The denial of the motion to intervene was therefore affirmed. View "BROWN V. SALCIDO" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over the rights to the name, image, and trademarks associated with the late artist Frida Kahlo. Two Panamanian corporations with principal places of business in Florida, Frida Kahlo Corporation and Frida Kahlo Investments, manage and license numerous Frida Kahlo trademarks. Mara Cristina Teresa Romeo Pinedo, Frida Kahlo’s grandniece and a resident of Mexico, is an owner and former officer of Familia Kahlo S.A. de C.V., a Mexican company. The parties’ relationship became contentious, leading to litigation in several countries over the intellectual property rights. Plaintiffs alleged that, beginning in 2017 and specifically targeting Florida in 2021 and 2022, the defendants sent cease-and-desist letters to plaintiffs’ business partners in Florida, threatening legal action based on what plaintiffs contend were false claims to trademark ownership. Plaintiffs claimed these actions constituted tortious interference under Florida law and the Lanham Act.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court found that Florida’s long-arm statute was satisfied for Familia Kahlo, but the corporate shield doctrine protected Pinedo because she was not acting in her personal capacity. The court further concluded that the minimum contacts required by due process were not established for either defendant, as sending cease-and-desist letters alone was insufficient.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The Eleventh Circuit held that the corporate shield doctrine did not apply to Pinedo because the cease-and-desist letters were sent on her behalf in her personal capacity. The court also held that due process permitted the exercise of personal jurisdiction over both defendants, as the “effects test” was satisfied and a tortious cease-and-desist letter can meet the minimum contacts requirement. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Frida Kahlo Corporation v. Pinedo" on Justia Law

After being found not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity, C.F. was admitted to a state hospital, where he was treated with antipsychotic medication under a court order. When the Department of State Hospitals sought to renew the order authorizing involuntary medication, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing. C.F.’s counsel did not request a court reporter, though one could have been provided at no cost by simply submitting a form. Consequently, no verbatim record of the hearing was made, and C.F. did not attend, with his counsel waiving his appearance.The Superior Court of Napa County heard from the Department’s expert witness and found, by clear and convincing evidence, that C.F. lacked capacity to refuse treatment, granting the renewal for up to one year. C.F. appealed, arguing that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his lawyer did not secure a record of the hearing. When C.F. later applied for a settled statement to reconstruct the hearing for appellate review, the trial court denied the request, finding he had waived his right to a record by not requesting a reporter.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Five, found that C.F.’s counsel’s failure to request a reporter constituted deficient performance, with no tactical explanation and resulting prejudice. The absence of a hearing record rendered meaningful appellate review impossible, amounting to a denial of due process and effective assistance of counsel. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded for a new hearing, noting that if the Department seeks to renew the order after its expiration, the new hearing may be combined with any future renewal petition. View "People v. C.F." on Justia Law

In June 2020, an individual purchased a recreational vehicle manufactured by two companies. The vehicle quickly developed problems, prompting the owner to seek repairs on multiple occasions and to notify the manufacturers of ongoing defects. Over the course of about two years, the vehicle underwent several repair attempts by both manufacturers and their authorized agents. After further repair offers were declined by the owner, statutory defect notices were sent, and additional repairs were made. The owner eventually sought relief under Florida’s Lemon Law, alleging that the manufacturers failed to adequately repair the defects.The dispute was submitted to arbitration pursuant to Florida Statute § 681.1095. The arbitration board concluded that the owner did not meet the burden of eligibility for a refund under the Lemon Law and only ordered limited repairs. The owner then appealed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. That court granted summary judgment for both manufacturers, holding that the owner failed to establish entitlement to relief because the statutory presumptions for repairs or days out-of-service were not met, and deemed as admitted the manufacturers’ statements of material facts due to procedural deficiencies in the owner’s filings.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that the district court erred by treating the statutory presumptions in Florida’s Lemon Law as mandatory requirements for relief. The court clarified that these presumptions are not prerequisites but rather examples of when a “reasonable number of attempts” has been made. Applying the correct standard, the appellate court affirmed summary judgment for one manufacturer because the owner failed to satisfy initial notice and repair requirements. However, as to the other manufacturer, it found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether a reasonable number of attempts had been made and therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Joyce v. Forest River, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff underwent a surgical procedure involving multiple surgical staplers, one of which was used to create an anastomosis that subsequently leaked. In October 2021, the plaintiff filed a products liability suit against several manufacturers of surgical staplers. Over the course of pretrial proceedings, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina issued multiple scheduling orders, ultimately extending the plaintiff’s expert disclosure deadline to March 15, 2024. The plaintiff failed to disclose any experts by this deadline. Twenty days later, the plaintiff moved to extend the expert disclosure deadline, citing delays in obtaining discovery and the model number of the stapler at issue.The district court denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend the scheduling order, finding that he had not shown “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), and entered summary judgment for the defendants due to the absence of expert testimony needed to support the plaintiff’s claims. The court noted that the plaintiff had not acted diligently, as required by Rule 16(b)(4), and had not filed a motion to compel or otherwise timely challenged the adequacy of discovery responses. The district court also relied on the plaintiff’s own representations regarding when he learned the model number of the stapler.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the denial of the motion to amend for abuse of discretion and the grant of summary judgment de novo. The appellate court held that the district court correctly applied Rule 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” standard to the request to extend the expert disclosure deadline and did not abuse its discretion in finding a lack of diligence. Because the plaintiff failed to offer expert evidence, the court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings in full. View "Eichin v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, LLC" on Justia Law

A developer purchased property in the Brookland neighborhood that included a historic mural and an adjacent parking lot providing clear sightlines to the mural. Another individual, who sought to preserve the mural, had previously contracted to buy the property but the deal fell through amid allegations of contract forgery by the seller. The developer, holding a promissory note secured by a deed of trust, initiated foreclosure and ultimately purchased the property at auction. The unsuccessful buyer accused the developer of fraud and publicly made statements labeling him as corrupt and claiming he had “problems with the DOJ” and had taken the property “by theft and fraud.” These statements were repeated online via a media outlet controlled by the unsuccessful buyer.The developer sued for defamation and false light in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The defendant moved to dismiss under the District’s Anti-SLAPP Act, arguing that his statements were protected advocacy on matters of public interest and that the developer was a limited-purpose public figure, thus requiring proof of actual malice. The trial court found the developer to be a limited-purpose public figure and denied most of the motion, allowing the claims to proceed except those related to certain statements outside the statute of limitations.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. It held that the Anti-SLAPP Act applied because the statements addressed issues of public interest, such as urban development and historic preservation. The court concluded that the developer was a limited-purpose public figure and therefore must show actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. The court found that the developer failed to demonstrate that the statements were false or made with actual malice. As a result, the court reversed the trial court’s denial of the Anti-SLAPP motion and remanded for further proceedings. View "Capitol Intelligence Group, Inc. v. Waldman" on Justia Law

A police officer employed by the Metropolitan Police Department experienced a data breach that exposed sensitive information of numerous employees. In response, the officer filed a putative class action in Superior Court for the District of Columbia, naming the District, certain government entities, and several private technology contractors as defendants. The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to safeguard employees’ data.During the proceedings, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed certain contractor defendants without prejudice, leaving the government defendants and a few contractors. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia granted the District’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the Metropolitan Police Department and the Office of the Chief Technology Officer could not be sued as unincorporated government bodies, and that sovereign immunity barred the claims against the District. The plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the remaining private contractor defendants and asked the Superior Court to close the case. The Superior Court closed the case, prompting the plaintiff to appeal both the dismissal of her claims against the District and the denial of reconsideration.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. It held that because the plaintiff dismissed her claims against the final contractor defendants without prejudice, the trial court’s order was not final as to all parties and claims. The court explained that dismissals without prejudice do not resolve the merits and thus do not confer appellate jurisdiction, except in rare circumstances. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the order below was not a final, appealable order. View "Moore v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

A group of residents opposed the construction of energy and telecommunications projects in Vermont by seeking to intervene in proceedings before the Vermont Public Utility Commission (PUC). The PUC granted certificates of public good (CPG) for both projects—one for a solar project and the other for a telecommunications tower. After these decisions, the intervenors filed timely motions under PUC Rule 2.221 to alter or amend the PUC’s orders. The PUC denied both motions, finding that Rule 2.221 incorporated the language of Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 59 and that the intervenors had not met the necessary standard for relief. The intervenors then appealed the denials to the Vermont Supreme Court.The developers moved to dismiss the appeals, arguing that the notices of appeal were filed more than thirty days after the PUC’s final decisions and were therefore untimely. They contended that PUC Rule 2.221 motions did not toll the time to appeal under Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b), as those rules reference only motions filed in the superior court and not with the PUC.The Vermont Supreme Court held that a timely motion to alter or amend filed with the PUC under Rule 2.221 is substantively the same as a Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 59 motion. The Court explained that, under Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(5), such motions toll the time for filing an appeal from a PUC decision. The Court distinguished prior cases involving appeals from municipal panels, where the rules did not allow for tolling. Because the intervenors’ motions were timely and tolled the appeal period, the Court denied the motions to dismiss, allowing the appeals to proceed. View "In re Petition of VT Real Estate Holdings 1 LLC" on Justia Law