Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

B-R Penn Realty defaulted on a $46 million loan backed by a mortgage on its Philadelphia apartment building. U.S. Bank, the lender, sued to foreclose in federal court, invoking diversity jurisdiction. After a bench trial, the District Court ruled that Penn Realty had breached the loan agreement and entered a money judgment in U.S. Bank’s favor for $51,392,086.96. U.S. Bank then sought a foreclosure sale of the building to recover the judgment amount. Penn Realty moved twice to halt the sale, but the District Court denied both motions, and the building was sold.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania initially ruled in favor of U.S. Bank, issuing a money judgment for the amount owed by Penn Realty. Penn Realty appealed the judgment but did not obtain a stay. Subsequently, U.S. Bank renewed its foreclosure efforts, and the District Court denied Penn Realty’s emergency motion to quash the writ of execution and cancel the sale. The sale was rescheduled, and Penn Realty filed a second motion to quash, which was also denied by the District Court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the sale of the building was an execution sale governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a), not a judicial sale under 28 U.S.C. § 2001. The court determined that U.S. Bank complied with the requirements of Rule 69(a), which imports Pennsylvania law for execution sales. The court also found that service of the writ was proper under Pennsylvania law. Consequently, the Third Circuit upheld the sale and affirmed the District Court’s denial of Penn Realty’s motion to quash. View "US Bank NA v. B R Penn Realty Owner LP" on Justia Law

County officials in Trinity County, California, obtained warrants to take Patricia and Stanley Miroth's children into protective custody, leading to the termination of their parental rights by a state court. The Miroths alleged that the officials failed to provide required social services and committed fraud in the state child custody proceedings, which led to the termination of their parental rights. After unsuccessful appeals in state court, the Miroths filed a federal lawsuit seeking money damages for these alleged wrongs.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed the federal claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents federal courts from reviewing state court judgments. The district court found that the Miroths were essentially seeking relief from the state court judgments and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply because the Miroths' claims did not seek relief from or reversal of the state court's order. Instead, they sought money damages for alleged legal wrongs by adverse parties that preceded the state court's order. The court emphasized that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is limited to cases where the federal plaintiff asserts injury caused by a state court judgment and seeks relief from that judgment. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings. View "MIROTH V. COUNTY OF TRINITY" on Justia Law

M.R., a high school student and basketball player, was sexually abused by Cody Butler, a women's basketball coach at Yakima Valley Community College (YVCC), starting when she was 17 years old. The abuse continued into her adulthood, including inappropriate touching, sexual comments, and physical advances. Butler's actions had a significant negative impact on M.R.'s life, leading to substance abuse, abusive relationships, and other personal issues. In 2018, M.R. connected her experiences of abuse to her injuries while in therapy.In 2019, M.R. sued the State of Washington, YVCC, and Butler for various claims, including negligence and assault. The trial court denied the State's motion for summary judgment, which argued that M.R.'s claims were time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations in RCW 4.16.080(2). The court found that the abuse was a continuous series of events that could not be segregated. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that RCW 4.16.340 only applies to claims based on acts of childhood sexual abuse occurring before the plaintiff turns 18 years old.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals. The court held that RCW 4.16.340 does not preclude complainants from bringing claims of sexual abuse that originate from childhood sexual abuse and extend into the victim’s adulthood. The court found that the statute's plain language and legislative intent support the inclusion of claims for continuing sexual abuse that are based on intentional acts of childhood sexual abuse. The court also noted that the statute accounts for the continuing tort doctrine, allowing for claims involving a common scheme of abuse by the same perpetrator. View "M.R. v. State" on Justia Law

John T. McFarland, a Program Support Specialist with the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA), requested a reclassification of his Grade 9 position to Grade 11 in 2011. The desk audit for this request was delayed, and the initial reviewer, Peter Delate, was replaced by Lewis Norman, who completed the audit in 2013 and concluded that the Grade 9 classification was correct. McFarland appealed this decision, but the Director of the District of Columbia’s Department of Human Resources (DCHR) upheld it. McFarland then petitioned for review in Superior Court, which affirmed DCHR’s decision. McFarland appealed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which also affirmed the decision.In 2017, McFarland filed another petition in Superior Court, presenting new documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request that suggested Delate had initially supported a Grade 11 classification. The Superior Court vacated DCHR’s decision and remanded the case for reconsideration. On remand, a new specialist reviewed the entire record and concluded that McFarland’s position was correctly classified as Grade 9. McFarland again petitioned for review in Superior Court, which denied his petition and his motion for sanctions against the District of Columbia.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and concluded that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain McFarland’s petition for review under the Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act (CMPA), as the classification decision did not involve a reduction in grade. The court also found that McFarland had not shown that the Superior Court erred in denying his motion for sanctions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of sanctions and remanded the case for dismissal of the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. View "McFarland v. District of Columbia, Department of Human Resources" on Justia Law

In 2009, John Roe DZ 20, John Roe DZ 21, and John Roe DZ 22 (Plaintiffs) sued an employee of Doe 3, Family Services Organization (Family Services) for alleged childhood sexual assault. The trial court dismissed the claims against the employee with prejudice due to the statute of limitations. In 2022, Plaintiffs filed a new complaint against Family Services based on the same allegations, relying on the revival provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1.The trial court overruled Family Services' demurrer, which argued that Plaintiffs' claims could not be revived under section 340.1, subdivision (q), because they were derivative of the claims litigated to finality in the 2009 action. Family Services then petitioned for a writ of mandate to direct the trial court to vacate its order and sustain the demurrer without leave to amend.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that a claim for derivative liability against a principal (Family Services) was "litigated to finality" under section 340.1, subdivision (q), where a previous suit against an agent (Dowell) for the same damages based on the same operative facts was dismissed with prejudice. The court directed the trial court to vacate its order overruling the demurrer and to sustain the demurrer with leave to amend, allowing Plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint to allege facts supporting liability based on conduct other than that of Dowell. View "Doe 3, Family Services Organization v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Chenault-Vaughan Family Partnership ("Chenault"), a royalty interest holder in a Texas mineral estate, sued Centennial Resources Operating, LLC ("Centennial"), the site operator, for wrongly withholding royalties. The Bankruptcy Court awarded summary judgment to Centennial. Chenault appealed to the District Court, where the parties consented to proceed before a Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s judgment, and Chenault appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.The Third Circuit first addressed whether the Magistrate Judge had jurisdiction to enter final judgment in the bankruptcy appeal. The court concluded that, with the consent of the parties and a referral by the district court, a magistrate judge may enter final judgment in a bankruptcy appeal. This conclusion was supported by the broad consent authority granted to magistrate judges under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the repeal of the statutory provision that previously prohibited such referrals, and the supervisory authority retained by Article III judges.On the merits, the Third Circuit reviewed the Bankruptcy Court’s summary judgment on two claims: trespass to try title and royalties under the Texas Natural Resources Code ("TNRC"). The court affirmed the summary judgment for Centennial on the trespass-to-try-title claim, finding that Centennial did not unlawfully enter the land and dispossess Chenault, as Luxe, a cotenant, had the right to extract minerals and permit Centennial to operate.However, the court vacated the summary judgment on the TNRC claim. The court found that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Centennial was obligated to pay Unit B royalties to Chenault, particularly concerning the Division Order and Centennial’s knowledge of MDC’s non-signature on the Unit B JOA. The case was remanded to the Magistrate Judge with instructions to remand to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings on the TNRC claim. View "In re: MTE Holdings LLC" on Justia Law

Incyte Corporation appealed a post-grant review (PGR) final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) which held that Incyte failed to prove claims 1–7 and 9–21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,561,659 were unpatentable. The '659 patent, owned by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., discloses a method of treating hair-loss disorders using deuterium-modified ruxolitinib. Incyte petitioned for PGR, arguing the claims were obvious, but the Board found Incyte's arguments unpersuasive and upheld the claims. Incyte's request for rehearing was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. Sun argued that Incyte lacked Article III standing to appeal. The court noted that standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue that must be addressed before reaching the merits of an appeal. To establish standing, Incyte needed to demonstrate an injury in fact, which it attempted to do by claiming potential infringement liability and invoking the competitor standing doctrine.The court found that Incyte's plans to develop a deuterated ruxolitinib product were too speculative to establish concrete plans for future activity that would create a substantial risk of future infringement. The court also determined that Incyte's reliance on the competitor standing doctrine was insufficient because Incyte did not show it was currently engaging in or had nonspeculative plans to engage in conduct covered by the claims of the '659 patent.Ultimately, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Incyte failed to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. View "INCYTE CORPORATION v. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. " on Justia Law

A Turkish graduate student, Rümeysa Öztürk, was lawfully residing in Massachusetts on a student visa when she was arrested by plainclothes officers without warning on March 25, 2025. She was transported across state lines and eventually detained in Louisiana. Her counsel, unaware of her location, filed a habeas petition in the District of Massachusetts, alleging her arrest was based on an op-ed she co-authored. The petition was transferred to the District of Vermont after it was revealed she had been in Vermont during transit.The District of Vermont set a schedule for a bail hearing and to resolve the constitutional claims in the habeas petition. The court ordered the government to transfer Öztürk from Louisiana to Vermont to aid in these proceedings. The government appealed this order, seeking an emergency stay of the transfer.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the government failed to justify a stay. It determined that the District of Vermont was the proper venue for the habeas petition since Öztürk was in Vermont when the petition was filed. The court also found that the government was unlikely to succeed on its arguments that jurisdiction-stripping provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act deprived the district court of jurisdiction over Öztürk’s detention challenge. Additionally, the court held that the government did not demonstrate irreparable injury absent a stay and that the balance of equities favored Öztürk.The Second Circuit denied the government’s motion for a stay, denied the request for a writ of mandamus, and vacated the administrative stay. The court ordered the government to comply with the district court’s transfer order within one week. View "Öztürk v. Hyde" on Justia Law

A former inmate at the Illinois River Correctional Center (IRCC) filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several prison officials, including Wardens Walter Nicholson and Gregory Gossett. The plaintiff alleged that the IRCC's failure to treat his chronic kidney disease, which progressed to acute renal failure, constituted deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiff claimed that the wardens were aware of the deficient medical practices that led to his injury.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted Warden Nicholson's motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiff's claim was time-barred and that he failed to state a claim. The court also granted Warden Gossett's motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to show that Gossett was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Additionally, the court excluded the plaintiff's expert witnesses, determining that their testimony would not assist the jury and might cause confusion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claim against Warden Nicholson, agreeing that the plaintiff's complaint contained only general allegations and did not provide specific deficiencies in the IRCC's health care system. The court also upheld the summary judgment in favor of Warden Gossett, concluding that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to show that Gossett was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert testimony, as the experts lacked relevant expertise and their opinions would not assist the jury. View "Ollison v Gossett" on Justia Law

The Borough of Englewood Cliffs filed a complaint and an amended complaint against its former attorneys and a builder, alleging professional malpractice, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and aiding and abetting. The Borough's actions followed a previous affordable housing litigation where the Borough did not prevail and subsequently settled with the builder. The Borough's new council, elected after a municipal election, pursued the litigation despite warnings from the defendants that the claims were frivolous.The trial court dismissed the Borough's complaints with prejudice, finding that the Borough acted in bad faith to harass, delay, and cause malicious injury. The court awarded the defendants attorney fees and costs under New Jersey’s Frivolous Litigation Statute (FLS), totaling $216,484.45. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that a public entity is not immune from sanctions under the FLS.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that municipalities and municipal corporations that engage in frivolous litigation are subject to sanctions under the FLS. The Court found that the FLS does not provide immunity to municipalities and that the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not protect municipalities from liability under the FLS. The Court emphasized that the FLS aims to deter frivolous litigation and compensate the victims of such actions. The judgment of the Appellate Division was affirmed as modified, holding the Borough liable for the sanctions imposed. View "Borough of Englewood Cliffs v. Trautner" on Justia Law