Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Banorte, a group of five associated entities of the Mexican bank Grupo Financiero Banorte, sued Cartograf S.A. de C.V. (Cartograf Mexico) in the Fourth Civil Court of Mexico City in 2021. Banorte alleged that Cartograf Mexico and its sole administrator, José Páramo Riestra, defaulted on loans and concealed assets. Banorte filed an ex parte application in the Eastern District of Virginia to conduct discovery on Cartograf Mexico’s American subsidiary, Cartograf USA, Inc., under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. The district court granted the application, allowing Banorte to serve Cartograf USA with a subpoena. Cartograf USA moved to quash the subpoena, but the district court denied the motion.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted Banorte’s application for discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, finding that the statutory requirements and discretionary factors set out in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. weighed in Banorte’s favor. The court allowed Banorte to serve subpoenas on Cartograf USA, seeking documents and deposition testimony related to Cartograf USA’s relationship with Cartograf Mexico and Páramo. Cartograf USA argued that the discovery was not for use in a foreign proceeding and that Banorte’s requests were made in bad faith, but the district court rejected these arguments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that Banorte satisfied the statutory requirements of § 1782, including the “for use” requirement, as the requested discovery had a reasonable possibility of being useful in the Mexican civil proceedings. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in analyzing the Intel factors, including the receptivity of the foreign tribunal and whether the request was an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court’s careful consideration of the factors and its decision to grant the application and deny the motion to quash were appropriate. View "Banco Mercantil Del Norte, S.A v. Cartograf USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Monsanto Company, Pharmacia, LLC, and Solutia, Inc. (collectively, "Monsanto") filed a lawsuit in St. Louis County Circuit Court in Missouri against Magnetek, Inc., General Electric Co. ("GE"), Paramount Global, KYOCERA AVX Components Corporation, Cornell Dubilier Electronics, Inc., and The Gillette Company LLC (collectively, "Defendants"). Monsanto alleged that it continues to incur substantial costs to defend against PCB lawsuits that should be borne by Defendants and sought to enforce written agreements obligating Defendants to defend, indemnify, and hold Monsanto harmless in all currently pending and future PCB lawsuits.GE removed the action to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted Monsanto’s motion to remand, finding that GE's removal was untimely. GE appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the parties had waived Missouri Supreme Court Rule 54.13(c)’s personal service provision and expressly agreed that January 31, 2023, was the effective date for service of process. The court determined that the 30-day removal period began on the agreed effective date of service, not when GE signed the acknowledgment and waiver of service of process or when Monsanto filed the document. Consequently, GE's notice of removal was filed within the 30-day period, making the removal timely.The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s order of remand and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court declined to address whether GE satisfies the government contractor requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), as this issue was not addressed by the district court. View "Monsanto Company v. General Electric Co." on Justia Law

An inmate at Green Bay Correctional Institution, who is a practicing Muslim, filed a lawsuit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) against the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (WDOC). He challenged WDOC's policy prohibiting inmates from leading religious programs when no outside religious leader or volunteer is available, claiming it resulted in unnecessary cancellations of religious programs. He also alleged that the cancellation of these programs breached a prior settlement agreement with WDOC.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment in favor of WDOC on the RLUIPA claim, finding that the policy was the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling interest of maintaining prison safety and security. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of the inmate on the state law breach-of-contract claim as to liability but relinquished supplemental jurisdiction over the request for injunctive relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of WDOC on the RLUIPA claim, agreeing that the policy was the least restrictive means to ensure prison safety and security. However, the appellate court vacated the district court's partial judgment on the state law breach-of-contract claim. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by relinquishing jurisdiction over the remedy portion of the claim while retaining jurisdiction over liability. The case was remanded to the district court to determine whether to retain or relinquish jurisdiction over the entire state law claim. View "West v Hoy" on Justia Law

Interfaith Sanctuary Housing Services, Inc. (IFS) applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate a large-scale low-barrier shelter home in Northwest Boise. The Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) initially denied the application, citing concerns about compatibility with the neighborhood, undue burden on public facilities, adverse effects on nearby properties, and insufficient information on mitigating adverse impacts. IFS appealed to the Boise City Council, which reversed the PZC’s decision and granted the CUP, imposing 30 conditions of approval. The Veterans Park Neighborhood Association, Inc. (VPNA) sought reconsideration, which was denied, and then petitioned the district court for judicial review.The district court upheld the City Council’s decision, finding no error in the Council’s actions. VPNA appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, arguing that the City Council’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, based on unlawful procedure, and that the Council’s reasoned statement was inadequate under the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA).The Idaho Supreme Court found that the City Council’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and based on unlawful procedure because the PZC’s determination that the CUP could not be conditioned into compliance with the CUP criteria was not an error. The Court also found that the City Council’s reasoned statement was conclusory and failed to adequately resolve pertinent factual disputes, thus violating LLUPA and depriving VPNA of due process. The Court concluded that VPNA demonstrated a prejudice to its substantial rights.The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case with instructions to invalidate the City Council’s approval of the CUP. VPNA was awarded costs but not attorney fees on appeal. View "Veterans Park Neighborhood Association, Inc. v. City of Boise" on Justia Law

Clayton D. Richards underwent a medical procedure at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) in August 2013, resulting in bilateral lower extremity paralysis. He initially filed a negligence lawsuit against VUMC in December 2014, which he later voluntarily dismissed. Richards refiled his complaint in January 2021, relying on Tennessee's saving statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-1-105, which allows a plaintiff to refile a lawsuit within one year of a voluntary nonsuit. However, the trial court dismissed his complaint, ruling that Richards did not comply with the saving statute's terms.The Circuit Court for Davidson County dismissed Richards' refiled complaint, holding that it was not filed within the one-year period required by the saving statute. Richards argued that Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(c) provided him with a 120-day extension to the one-year saving statute, making his lawsuit timely. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal, agreeing that the 120-day extension did not apply to the saving statute.The Supreme Court of Tennessee reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(c) does not extend the one-year refiling period provided by the saving statute. The court emphasized that the 120-day extension applies only to statutes of limitations and repose, not to the saving statute. Consequently, Richards' refiled complaint was untimely, and the trial court's dismissal of the case was upheld. View "Richards v. Vanderbilt University Medical Center" on Justia Law

David Morway sought review of an unpublished order by the court of appeals that dismissed his appeal as untimely. The appeal was against a May 24, 2023, circuit court order denying his motion to modify or terminate spousal maintenance. The court of appeals concluded that the order was final for purposes of appeal under WIS. STAT. § 808.03(1) and dismissed the appeal because David filed his notice of appeal outside the 90-day timeframe.In the Ozaukee County Circuit Court, David and Karen Morway were divorced in 2019, with David ordered to pay spousal maintenance. David filed a motion to modify the maintenance in May 2022 due to a change in his employment circumstances. The family court commissioner reduced David’s maintenance obligation, but Karen appealed. The circuit court held a trial and denied David’s motion to modify or terminate maintenance in an oral decision on April 19, 2023, which was later memorialized in the May 24 order. Karen’s post-trial motion for attorney fees based on overtrial was also denied at that time.The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the May 24 order was final because it disposed of the entire matter in litigation, specifically David’s motion to modify or terminate maintenance. The court held that the order was unambiguous in its finality, despite lacking an explicit finality statement. The court affirmed the court of appeals' decision, concluding that David’s notice of appeal was not timely filed within the 90-day period, and thus, the court of appeals properly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Morway v. Morway" on Justia Law

Appellants CKHS, Inc. and The Foundation for Delaware County sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Appellees Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. and Prospect Crozer, LLC from converting Delaware County Memorial Hospital from an emergency and acute care facility to a behavioral health hospital. The asset purchase agreement (APA) between the parties included clauses requiring Prospect to maintain key service lines, including emergency medicine, for five years and to consult with a local advisory board before making significant changes after that period. Additionally, the APA stipulated that any breach would cause irreparable damage.The Delaware County Court of Common Pleas granted the preliminary injunction, finding that Appellants demonstrated the necessary prerequisites, including irreparable harm. The court relied on the APA's irreparable harm clause and expert testimony from Melissa Lyon, who testified that removing healthcare access points from a community almost always negatively impacts health outcomes, particularly for socioeconomically disadvantaged and elderly populations.The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court's order, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion by finding irreparable harm based on speculative and hypothetical evidence. The Commonwealth Court held that the APA's irreparable harm clause alone was insufficient and required concrete evidence of harm, which it found lacking in Lyon's testimony.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and determined that the Commonwealth Court misapplied the appellate standard of review, which requires a highly deferential approach to the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court found that the trial court had apparently reasonable grounds to issue the preliminary injunction based on Lyon's testimony and the APA's irreparable harm clause. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings to address the remaining factors for preliminary injunctive relief. View "CKHS, Inc. v. Prospect Med Hldgs, Inc." on Justia Law

Five elderly African elephants, Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo, reside at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo. The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. (NRP) filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on behalf of the elephants, seeking their transfer to a suitable elephant sanctuary. NRP argued that the elephants were unlawfully confined and had a right to bodily liberty due to their cognitive and social complexities. The petition included affidavits from animal biologists supporting the elephants' autonomy and complex needs.The El Paso County District Court dismissed the petition, ruling that Colorado's habeas corpus statute only applies to persons, not nonhuman animals. The court accepted NRP's allegations as true but concluded that the elephants lacked standing to seek habeas relief. The court also determined that NRP did not have proper next friend status to bring the petition on the elephants' behalf. Additionally, the court found that NRP failed to make a prima facie case that the elephants were unlawfully confined, as the zoo was operating within legal standards.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the habeas corpus statute in Colorado applies only to persons, defined as human beings, and does not extend to nonhuman animals. The court rejected NRP's argument to rely on common law for broader habeas corpus rights, emphasizing that the statute explicitly limits relief to persons. The court also noted that recognizing nonhuman animals as persons would have significant legal and societal implications. Consequently, the elephants did not have standing to bring a habeas corpus claim, and the district court's dismissal was upheld. View "Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Cheyenne Mountain Zoological Soc'y" on Justia Law

The plaintiff filed a defamation lawsuit against the defendant after she called him a "white supremacist" on a social media page. The defendant made this statement during a heated political discussion on a town's Facebook page, which was in response to a joint statement by local officials regarding the killing of George Floyd. The plaintiff argued that the term "white supremacist" constituted defamation per se.The trial court, the Superior Court in the judicial district of Waterbury, granted the defendant's special motion to dismiss under Connecticut's anti-SLAPP statute (§ 52-196a). The court determined that the defendant's statements were nonactionable opinions rather than actionable defamation per se. The court also awarded the defendant attorney’s fees and costs. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court incorrectly concluded that he had failed to show probable cause that he would prevail on the merits of his defamation claim and that the court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that the term "white supremacist," without more, is a nonactionable opinion rather than actionable defamation per se. The court reasoned that the term lacks a precise meaning, cannot be objectively verified, and does not necessarily imply that the declarant knew existing, undisclosed defamatory facts. The context in which the defendant made the statement—a heated political debate on social media—further supported the conclusion that the statement was an opinion. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's award of attorney’s fees and costs to the defendant. View "Murphy v. Rosen" on Justia Law

Kevin Johnson, an inmate in Indiana, filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he received inadequate dental and mental health care while incarcerated. The case was complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic and Johnson's frequent transfers between prisons in Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia, which disrupted his mail service. Johnson claimed he never received the defendants' summary judgment motions due to these mail issues.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana initially denied the defendants' summary judgment motions without prejudice, recognizing potential mail delivery problems. The court allowed the defendants to refile their motions and instructed them to notify the court if Johnson did not receive the filings. Despite these measures, Johnson did not respond to the refiled motions within the given 28-day period. Consequently, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed the case. Johnson later filed a motion to vacate the judgment, asserting he never received the refiled motions, but the district court denied this motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court acknowledged the procedural complexities but focused on whether Johnson had constructive notice of the summary judgment motions. The court concluded that Johnson had constructive notice because he received the district court's order resetting the briefing schedule and instructing him on how to proceed. The court found no substantive or procedural error in the district court's decision and affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Johnson v Purdue" on Justia Law