Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Sysco Machinery Corporation, a Taiwanese company, accused DCS USA Corporation, a North Carolina company, of business torts related to their manufacturer-distributor relationship. Sysco alleged that after some of its employees left to form a competitor, Cymtek Solutions, Inc., DCS sold machines made by Cymtek using Sysco's confidential information. Sysco claimed these diverted contracts were worth millions of dollars.Sysco first filed suit in Taiwan, where it claims to have won a preliminary injunction against Cymtek. Sysco then filed a suit in the Eastern District of North Carolina, which it voluntarily dismissed, followed by a suit in the District of Massachusetts, which was dismissed. Finally, Sysco returned to the Eastern District of North Carolina, where it brought claims for trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The district court dismissed all claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and denied Sysco's post-judgment leave to amend its complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Sysco's trade secret misappropriation claim, finding that Sysco did not plausibly allege the existence of a valid trade secret or that DCS misappropriated it. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Sysco's other claims, noting that Sysco did not sufficiently develop its arguments for copyright infringement, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. Finally, the court upheld the district court's denial of Sysco's motion to alter or amend the judgment and for leave to amend the complaint, citing Sysco's repeated failure to state a claim and the potential prejudice to DCS. View "Sysco Machinery Corp. v. DCS USA Corp." on Justia Law

A mother appealed the dismissal of a neglect case brought against her by the State of Wyoming. The case involved her two children, AB and JC. The mother was arrested for drug-related charges, and the children were placed in protective custody. JC was released to his father, who had primary custody, while AB was released to his paternal grandfather and later to his father, who lived in Texas. The State filed a neglect petition, and the juvenile court held hearings, during which the mother denied the allegations. The court initially placed AB with his paternal grandfather and later with his father.The juvenile court found the children had been neglected and ordered continued placement with their fathers while the mother completed a case plan. The State moved to dismiss the neglect petition after the mother made progress on her case plan and AB's father sought custody. The juvenile court initially dismissed the petition but vacated the dismissal after the mother objected. The court later set a permanency review hearing and maintained the status quo, allowing the mother to continue working on her case plan.The State again moved to dismiss the case, noting the mother’s progress and the existence of custody agreements for both children. The juvenile court dismissed the neglect petition, and the mother appealed. The Wyoming Supreme Court found the appeal moot because the State had dismissed the neglect action, and the mother had physical custody of AB. The court concluded that any judgment would have no practical effect on the existing controversy and dismissed the appeal. The court also determined that none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied in this case. View "In the Interest Of: AB and JC" on Justia Law

Ian Elliot, Cindy Elliot, and their mother, Ada Elliot, were partners in StarFire, a limited partnership owning property in Gallatin County. Cindy managed StarFire and sought to remove Ian as a general partner. Ian was appointed Ada’s guardian, and Joyce Wuertz was appointed as Ada’s conservator. Ian sued Cindy for misappropriation of funds and sought to remove Wuertz as conservator, but his motions were denied. Ada’s will divided her estate equally between Ian and Cindy, but due to their strained relationship, a special administrator was appointed instead of Ian. Ian’s subsequent motions to disqualify the special administrator were also denied.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, appointed Andrew Billstein as the special administrator of Ian’s estate. The Objectors (Jenny Jing, Alice Carpenter, and Mike Bolenbaugh) filed an untimely appeal against this appointment, which was declined. The Objectors also opposed the settlement agreements proposed by the Special Administrator, which aimed to resolve ongoing litigation involving Ian’s estate. The District Court approved the settlements, finding them reasonable under the Pallister factors, and denied the Objectors’ motion for relief under M. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court’s decisions. The court held that the District Court had subject matter jurisdiction to approve the settlement agreements and did not abuse its discretion in doing so. The court found that the settlements were reasonable, considering the strength of the cases, the risk and expense of further litigation, and the views of experienced counsel. The court also upheld the District Court’s denial of the Objectors’ post-judgment relief motions. View "In re Estate of Elliot" on Justia Law

In 1999, Rosemary Colver executed the Colver Land Trust agreement, naming her five children as beneficiaries and appointing Bruce and Karin as co-trustees. Rosemary and her husband, Richard, retained life estates in any real property held by the Land Trust. The Land Trust sold and purchased properties over the years, with the final property being the Sanders County Property, purchased by Rosemary and Richard in 2010. Richard quitclaimed his interest to Rosemary in 2012, and Rosemary's will devised the Sanders County Property in trust for Richard and their daughter, Gretchen, allowing them to reside there until their deaths.After Rosemary's death in 2017, Bruce and Gretchen were appointed co-personal representatives of her estate. The final accounting identified the Sanders County Property as an estate asset. In 2023, Gretchen filed a petition to correct the distribution of the Sanders County Property, claiming a life estate per the will. Bruce and the Land Trust filed a cross-motion, asserting the property belonged to the Land Trust, alleging it was purchased with Land Trust funds.The Twentieth Judicial District Court, sitting in probate, denied Bruce and the Land Trust's motion for summary judgment and granted Gretchen's motion, ruling that the Land Trust did not equitably own the Sanders County Property and that Gretchen had a valid life estate per the will.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the probate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the Land Trust's claim of equitable ownership, as such claims are equitable in nature and fall outside the probate court's limited jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed the probate court's decision regarding the Land Trust's claim and remanded with instructions to dismiss it. However, it affirmed the probate court's ruling that Gretchen had a valid life estate in the Sanders County Property as per the will. View "In re R.E. Colver" on Justia Law

Lisa Johnson and Gale Miller Anderson, former Amazon warehouse employees, alleged that Amazon violated federal and Illinois wage laws by not compensating them for time spent in mandatory pre-shift COVID-19 screenings. These screenings, which included temperature checks and symptom questions, took 10-15 minutes on average and were required before employees could clock in for their shifts. Johnson and Miller Anderson argued that this time should be compensable as it was necessary for their work and primarily benefited Amazon by ensuring a safe workplace during the pandemic.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed their claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL). The court found that the FLSA claims were barred by the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (PPA), which excludes certain pre-shift activities from compensable time. The district court also concluded that the IMWL claims failed because it assumed the IMWL incorporated the PPA’s exclusions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed whether the IMWL incorporates the PPA’s exclusions for compensable time. The court noted the lack of Illinois state court decisions directly addressing this issue and found the arguments from both parties plausible. To resolve this important and unsettled question of state law, the Seventh Circuit decided to certify the question to the Illinois Supreme Court, seeking a definitive answer on whether the IMWL includes the PPA’s limitations on pre-shift compensation. The court stayed further proceedings pending the Illinois Supreme Court's decision. View "Johnson v. Amazon.com Services LLC" on Justia Law

James Reilly, a deputy in the Will County Sheriff's Office, alleged that his employer and Sheriff Michael Kelley retaliated against him for criticizing Kelley during a 2018 election campaign by not promoting him to sergeant. Reilly filed his complaint over two years after his eligibility for promotion expired. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it was untimely. The district court agreed, granted the motion to dismiss, and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. Reilly then requested the district court to set aside its judgment and allow him to amend his complaint, but the court denied this request, applying a heightened standard and requiring extraordinary circumstances for relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court had mistakenly applied a heightened standard to Reilly's Rule 59(e) motion instead of the liberal standard for amending pleadings. The appellate court concluded that Reilly's proposed amended complaint stated a plausible claim for relief and that he had not pled himself out of court based on the statute of limitations. The court noted that Reilly's claim could not be conclusively determined as time-barred at this stage and that the defendants could raise the statute of limitations defense later in the case on a more complete factual record.The Seventh Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Reilly to proceed with his amended complaint. View "Reilly v Will County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

Rajesh Patel filed for bankruptcy in 2016, which triggered an automatic stay on all creditor actions against him. Despite this, Patel participated in an arbitration proceeding and lost. After a state court affirmed the arbitration award, Patel sought to stay the enforcement of the award in bankruptcy court, arguing that the arbitration violated the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court annulled the stay, finding that Patel had engaged in gamesmanship by participating in the arbitration without raising the stay and then attempting to use it to void the unfavorable outcome.The bankruptcy court's decision was appealed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's annulment of the stay, rejecting Patel's argument that the annulment was contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano. The district court found that Acevedo, which dealt with the jurisdiction of a district court after a case was removed to federal court, did not affect the bankruptcy court's statutory authority to annul the automatic stay for cause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The Eleventh Circuit held that the bankruptcy court had the authority under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) to annul the automatic stay for cause. The court distinguished the case from Acevedo, noting that Acevedo addressed the removal jurisdiction of a district court and did not impact the bankruptcy court's power to annul a stay. The court also rejected Patel's procedural objections, finding that any error in the process was harmless as Patel had sufficient notice and opportunity to oppose the requested relief. View "Patel v. Patel" on Justia Law

D’Andre Lampkin, a deputy at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD), filed a complaint alleging whistleblower retaliation after he reported an interaction with Michael Reddy, a retired deputy sheriff. Lampkin claimed that Reddy’s friends at LASD retaliated against him, leading to his suspension, a search of his residence, and termination of medical benefits. Lampkin sought monetary damages and other relief. The case went to trial, and the jury found that while Lampkin engaged in protected whistleblowing activity and this was a factor in LASD’s actions against him, LASD would have made the same decisions for legitimate, independent reasons. Consequently, the jury awarded no damages.Lampkin moved to amend his complaint to seek injunctive and declaratory relief, but the trial court denied the motion. He then filed a motion to be declared the prevailing party and sought attorney’s fees, arguing that the same-decision defense should not preclude a fee award, as held in Harris v. City of Santa Monica for FEHA cases. The trial court agreed, declared Lampkin the prevailing party, and awarded him costs and attorney’s fees.The County of Los Angeles appealed to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District. The appellate court held that Lampkin did not bring a “successful action” under Labor Code section 1102.5 because he obtained no relief due to the County’s successful same-decision defense. Therefore, he was not entitled to attorney’s fees. The court also found that the County was the prevailing party under section 1032, as neither party obtained any relief, and thus Lampkin was not entitled to costs. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and order awarding fees and costs to Lampkin and directed the trial court to enter a new judgment in favor of the County. View "Lampkin v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Robert Cox, acting as the personal representative and special administrator of the estate of Greta Cox, sued Total Quality Logistics, Inc. and Total Quality Logistics, LLC (collectively, TQL) for negligence under Ohio law. Cox alleged that TQL, in its role as a freight broker, negligently hired an unsafe motor carrier, Golden Transit, Inc., which resulted in a motor vehicle crash that killed his wife, Greta Cox. The crash occurred when the driver of the motor carrier, Amarjit Singh Khaira, failed to slow down in a construction zone and collided with Greta Cox's vehicle.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed the case, ruling that Cox’s claims were preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), specifically 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c). The district court found that the FAAAA preempted the state law claims because they related to the services of a broker with respect to the transportation of property and did not fall within the Act’s safety exception.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in its interpretation of the FAAAA’s safety exception. The Sixth Circuit concluded that the safety exception, which preserves the safety regulatory authority of a state with respect to motor vehicles, includes common law claims like Cox’s negligent hiring claim. The court reasoned that such claims are genuinely responsive to safety concerns and directly involve motor vehicles and motor vehicle safety. Therefore, the court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc." on Justia Law

Vivos Therapeutics, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Ortho-Tain, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The lawsuit stemmed from communications made by Ortho-Tain’s CEO and attorney to Benco Dental Supply, alleging that Vivos misrepresented Ortho-Tain’s products as its own. Vivos’s amended complaint included claims for false advertising under the Lanham Act, violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, libel per se, slander per se, intentional interference with contractual relations, and a declaratory judgment that Vivos did not violate the Lanham Act.The District Court for the District of Colorado denied Ortho-Tain’s motion to dismiss, which argued that certain claims should be dismissed based on the Colorado litigation privilege. Ortho-Tain appealed the denial, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit previously held that it lacked jurisdiction over the denial of immunity for Neff’s communications due to disputed factual issues. The Tenth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to consider whether the communications were made in good faith contemplation of litigation.On remand, the district court again denied Ortho-Tain’s motion to dismiss, stating that it would not make a factual determination on whether the communications were made in good faith at the pleading stage. Ortho-Tain appealed this decision, arguing that the district court failed to properly analyze the good faith of the communications.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that it could not review the district court’s denial of immunity because it involved disputed factual issues. Without jurisdiction over the denial of immunity, the Tenth Circuit also declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the remaining interlocutory rulings. View "Vivos Therapeutics. v. Ortho-Tain" on Justia Law