Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A Texas county judge, Brian Umphress, challenged the State Commission on Judicial Conduct's application of Canon 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to conduct their extra-judicial activities in a manner that does not call into question their impartiality. Umphress, who refuses to perform same-sex marriages for religious reasons while continuing to perform opposite-sex marriages, argued that applying the Canon to his refusal is unconstitutional. This challenge arose after a similar situation involving Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley, who was publicly warned by the Commission for her refusal to perform same-sex weddings.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed Umphress's case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that he lacked standing and that his claims were not ripe. The court also noted that even if it had jurisdiction, it would have abstained under the Pullman doctrine, which allows federal courts to defer to state courts on issues of unclear state law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that Umphress had standing and that his claims were ripe for review. The court held that Umphress had demonstrated an imminent injury in fact, as his intended conduct was arguably proscribed by Canon 4A(1) and there was a substantial threat of future enforcement by the Commission. The court also determined that the case was not moot despite the Commission's rescission of its warning against Hensley, as the Commission had not disavowed future enforcement against Umphress.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and declined to abstain under Pullman, noting that state court litigation was unlikely to resolve the crucial threshold question of Texas law. Instead, the court certified the question to the Supreme Court of Texas, asking whether Canon 4A(1) prohibits judges from publicly refusing to perform same-sex weddings for moral or religious reasons while continuing to perform opposite-sex weddings. View "Umphress v. Hall" on Justia Law

Gustavo Santander and his wife visited a sports bar in Fort Worth, Texas, where Jose Salazar, an off-duty police officer working as a security guard, allegedly pushed Santander without provocation, causing him to fall. When Santander confronted Salazar, Salazar allegedly punched him multiple times, leading to his arrest for public intoxication. The charge was later dismissed, and an internal review by the Fort Worth Police Department concluded that Salazar had violated departmental rules, resulting in his termination. Santander then filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming excessive force, false arrest, and malicious prosecution.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed Santander’s claims with prejudice, stating that he failed to cite relevant legal authority to support his claims and did not show that Salazar violated any clearly established rights. Santander appealed the decision, arguing that the district court erred in its judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that the district court applied an incorrect pleading standard by requiring Santander to substantiate his claims with legal authority in his complaint. The appellate court held that Santander’s excessive force claim was plausible and could defeat Salazar’s qualified immunity at the pleading stage. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Santander’s false arrest and malicious prosecution claims, as he could not show that Salazar violated clearly established law regarding these claims.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims but reversed the dismissal of the excessive force claim, remanding it for further proceedings. View "Santander v. Salazar" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Melissa Mandell-Brown, filed a complaint against Novo Nordisk, Inc. and Zamaneh Zamanian, asserting 16 causes of action, including claims for discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Labor Code, as well as common law claims for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by a separate statement of 161 undisputed facts, attorney declarations, and witness declarations.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment after the plaintiff failed to file an opposition or a separate statement in response to the motion. The court granted two continuances to the plaintiff, but she still did not file the required documents or appear at the continued hearing. The court concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the plaintiff could not prove the elements of her causes of action.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(3), by granting the motion based on the plaintiff’s failure to file the requisite separate statement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, noting that the trial court had the discretion to grant the motion for summary judgment due to the plaintiff's non-compliance with the procedural requirements, especially given the complexity of the case and the multiple continuances already granted. View "Mandell-Brown v. Novo Nordisk Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, E&I Global Energy Services, Inc. and E&C Global, LLC, sued Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for breach of contract and tort claims related to a construction project. The United States, through the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), contracted with Isolux to build a substation, and Liberty issued performance and payment bonds for Isolux. After Isolux was terminated, Liberty hired E&C as the completion contractor, but E&I performed the work. Plaintiffs claimed Liberty failed to pay for the work completed.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota granted summary judgment for Liberty on the unjust enrichment claim and ruled in Liberty's favor on all other claims after a bench trial. The court denied Plaintiffs' untimely request for a jury trial, excluded an expert witness report filed after the deadline, found no evidence of an assignment of rights between E&C and E&I, and ruled against Plaintiffs on their fraud, deceit, and negligent misrepresentation claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the jury trial request, as Plaintiffs failed to timely file the motion and did not justify the delay. The exclusion of the expert report was also upheld, as the district court properly applied the relevant factors and found the late report was neither substantially justified nor harmless. The court affirmed the district court's finding that there was no valid assignment of rights from E&C to E&I, meaning Liberty's promise to pay was to E&C, not E&I. The court also upheld the findings that Liberty did not have the intent to deceive or induce reliance, and that Bruce did not reasonably rely on Mattingly's statements. Finally, the court declined to address the unjust enrichment claim as Plaintiffs did not raise the argument below. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings in their entirety. View "E&I Global Energy Services v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

A county board of supervisors approved a nonprofit entity’s application to rezone a parcel of land in rural Polk County. Another nonprofit entity and several nearby landowners filed a lawsuit challenging the rezoning decision. The plaintiffs argued that the rezoning violated the county’s comprehensive land use plan, zoning ordinances, and constituted illegal spot zoning. The board of supervisors moved to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming the plaintiffs lacked standing and were subject to heightened pleading requirements under Iowa’s Municipal Tort Claims Act.The Iowa District Court for Polk County granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish standing and were subject to the Act’s heightened pleading requirements. The court found that the individual plaintiffs did not adequately allege their proximity to the rezoned property or their personal concerns, and that the nonprofit organization did not sufficiently allege that its members had a specific and personal interest in the rezoning. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs could not amend their petition due to the Act’s requirements.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the heightened pleading requirements and penalties under Iowa Code § 670.4A(3) did not apply because the plaintiffs were not seeking monetary damages. The court found that the individual plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged standing based on their proximity to the rezoned property and the nature of the proposed changes. However, the court concluded that the nonprofit organization had not established standing but should be allowed to amend its petition. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "1000 Friends of Iowa v. Polk County Board of Supervisors" on Justia Law

In August 2023, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden ("Gadsden Water") filed a lawsuit in the Etowah Circuit Court against several corporate defendants, including DuPont De Nemours, Inc., and Daikin America, Inc., alleging contamination of its raw-water intake from the Coosa River with perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Gadsden Water claimed that the defendants' actions led to substantial economic and consequential damages, including costs for future filtration systems, monitoring contamination levels, and remediation of contaminated property.Previously, in September 2016, Gadsden Water had filed a similar lawsuit ("Gadsden I") against other parties for PFAS contamination, which was settled before trial. The settlement funds were intended to cover the costs of a new water-treatment facility and its long-term operation. The Etowah Circuit Court denied motions to dismiss the current case, leading the defendants to file petitions for writs of mandamus with the Supreme Court of Alabama.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the petitions. For DuPont and Daikin, the Court found that Gadsden Water's claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, as the claims accrued no later than September 2016, when Gadsden Water first became aware of the PFAS contamination. The Court granted the petition for writ of mandamus, directing the Etowah Circuit Court to dismiss the claims against DuPont and Daikin.For INV Performance Surfaces, LLC, the Court determined that the Etowah Circuit Court lacked specific personal jurisdiction. INV's limited contacts with Alabama, including owning equipment in one or two Alabama carpet mills in 2006, were insufficient to establish jurisdiction. The Court granted INV's petition for writ of mandamus, directing the Etowah Circuit Court to dismiss the claims against INV. View "Ex parte DuPont De Nemours, Inc." on Justia Law

Leaf Supreme Products, LLC sued James and Adella Bachman, who counterclaimed. A jury found in favor of Leaf Supreme on a conversion claim, awarding approximately $200,000 in damages. Believing all claims resolved, the Bachmans attempted to appeal, but the Nebraska Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, noting unresolved claims. Leaf Supreme then sought a debtor’s examination of the Bachmans, which the district court ordered on February 3, 2023, before entering a final judgment on February 6, 2023.The district court’s February 3 order was void as it was issued before a final judgment. The Bachmans did not comply with this order or subsequent orders, leading the district court to hold them in contempt on May 4, 2023, and again on September 7, 2023, imposing sanctions and ordering them to produce financial information and appear for questioning. The district court reiterated this on March 1, 2024, ordering their incarceration unless they complied.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the February 3 order was void because it was issued before a final judgment, and refusal to obey a void order is not contempt. The subsequent orders were also void as they were based on the initial void order. The court found that the September 7 order did not clearly indicate it was a new, separate order in aid of execution, thus failing to provide clear warning to the Bachmans.The Nebraska Supreme Court vacated the district court’s contempt order and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the district court to issue a new, valid order for a debtor’s examination. View "Leaf Supreme Prods. v. Bachman" on Justia Law

A property owner applied for a conditional use permit to build a commercial hog facility on its land in rural Cherry County, Nebraska. The facility was intended to provide manure for fertilizing the owner's crops. Neighboring landowners objected to the issuance of the permit, arguing that the owner, not being the operator of the facility, could not establish compliance with zoning regulations regarding odor mitigation and water contamination.The Cherry County Board of Commissioners issued the permit, and the neighboring landowners appealed to the district court, seeking a trial de novo. The district court held a trial and determined that the owner's application complied with the relevant zoning regulations, affirming the issuance of the permit. The neighboring landowners then appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, while the Board cross-appealed, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the neighboring landowners' appeal.The Nebraska Supreme Court found that the district court had jurisdiction over the appeal, as the relevant statutes did not limit the right to appeal to applicants only. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in finding that the property owner demonstrated compliance with the zoning regulations. The court held that the property owner, not the operator, was responsible for showing compliance with the regulations and that the odor and water contamination mitigation plans submitted by the owner were sufficient. The court affirmed the district court's decision to uphold the issuance of the conditional use permit. View "Amorak v. Cherry Cty. Bd. of Comrs." on Justia Law

William Maxwell, a federal prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus, seeking transfer to a halfway house or home confinement under the First Step Act of 2018. He argued that the district court erred in determining that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dismissed Maxwell's petition, concluding that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies. Maxwell appealed this decision, contending that the district court's determination was incorrect.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that Maxwell's request for transfer to a halfway house or home confinement did not entitle him to accelerated release. According to the court's precedent in Melot v. Bergami, such relief should be sought through a civil rights suit rather than a habeas petition. Consequently, the court did not address whether Maxwell had exhausted his administrative remedies, as the proper vehicle for his claim was a civil rights suit, not a habeas petition. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Maxwell's petition. View "Maxwell v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Allan Gumarang entered into a lease agreement with Braemer on Raymond, LLC (Lessor) to operate an ice cream parlor. The lease included provisions requiring the Lessor to maintain the property and for Gumarang to obtain liability insurance and indemnify the Lessor against claims arising from his use of the property. In October 2017, a fire destroyed the property, and Gumarang alleged that the Lessor and its management (Management) failed to ensure the property had adequate fire prevention systems.Gumarang filed a lawsuit against the Lessor and Management for breach of contract, negligence, and other claims. In response, the Lessor and Management demanded that Gumarang defend and indemnify them under the lease terms. When Gumarang refused, they filed a cross-complaint for indemnity and breach of contract. Gumarang filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the cross-complaint, arguing it arose from his protected activity of filing the lawsuit.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Gumarang’s anti-SLAPP motion in part, striking the cross-claims for comparative indemnity and equitable indemnity but denied it for the contractual indemnity and breach of contract claims. The court found that the latter claims did not arise from protected activity and that the indemnity provision in the lease was enforceable. The court also denied Gumarang’s request for attorney fees, finding he did not achieve a practical benefit from the partial success of his anti-SLAPP motion.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the lower court’s decisions. The appellate court agreed that the cross-claims for contractual indemnity and breach of contract did not arise from Gumarang’s protected activity of filing the lawsuit but from his alleged breach of the lease’s indemnity provision. The court also upheld the denial of attorney fees, concluding that Gumarang did not obtain a significant practical benefit from the partial success of his anti-SLAPP motion. View "Gumarang v. Braemer on Raymond, LLC" on Justia Law