Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Parents of a severely disabled child (T.R.) prevailed in a suit against the school district where the child was abused by his special education teacher. A jury awarded a substantial verdict and the school district challenged the verdict, alleging that the parents are not the proper parties to file suit. In this case, the victim was a minor when the challenged conduct occurred but turned 18 by the time of trial; his disability rendered him incompetent even after he reached majority; a bank had been appointed to serve as his guardian; and that same bank oversaw a trust that paid for the minor’s medical bills. The court concluded that the parents have Article III standing to directly seek past medical expenses and to seek future home care expenses on behalf of T.R.; the Bank, as guardian, should have filed suit to recover the claims T.R. would otherwise possess - those for future home care expenses, physical pain and anguish, and impairment - by suing in their name on his behalf; the Bank owed a fiduciary duty to T.R., and absent a showing of conflict, the parents could not circumvent the Bank by filing suit on T.R.'s behalf; the court found that the district court's refusal to allow ratification of the parents' actions was an abuse of discretion because nothing in the text of Federal Rule 17(a)(3) or the court's decisions applying it supports the district court's decision; and federal statutes at issue do not authorize recovery for the parents' mental anguish based on the mistreatment of their son. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rideau v. Keller Indep. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Matt Holten and Jeff Ellis under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendants, law enforcement officers, used excessive force while taking plaintiff into custody. Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of appeal, and he eventually filed a brief challenging only the district court’s dismissal of the claim against Holten. The notice of appeal, however, specified that plaintiff was appealing only a different order in the case. Where an appellant specifies one order of the district court in his notice of appeal, but fails to identify another, the notice is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction to review the unmentioned order. Where a district court dismisses one claim at an early stage of the case, and later enters an order and judgment dismissing a second claim, a notice of appeal that cites only the later order and judgment does not confer appellate jurisdiction to review the earlier order. In this case, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the order not mentioned in plaintiff's notice of appeal. Because plaintiff failed to raise any arguments in regard to the order he did mention, the court determined that plaintiff has abandoned any challenge to that order. View "Rosillo v. Holten" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles challenging the validity of a certain tax and seeking a refund of taxes. In 2007, during discovery proceedings in the underlying litigation, the trial court determined that certain documents the City possessed were privileged under either the the attorney-client privilege or the privilege for attorney work product. In 2013, Plaintiff filed a request under the California Public Records Act seeking to obtain copies of documents relating to the tax at issue. The City’s administrative office, in response, inadvertently provided Plaintiff with some of the privileged documents. The City filed a motion for an order compelling the return of the privileged material. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the production of the documents under the Public Records Act had waived any privilege. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Cal. Gov’t Code 6254.5, which generally provides that “disclosure” of a public record waives any privilege, applies to an intentional, not an inadvertent, disclosure. Remanded. View "Ardon v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence and having an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle. Defendant appealed, arguing that the magistrate court and circuit court erred by failing to suppress evidence from the traffic stop that led to his convictions because the law enforcement officer lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the totality of the circumstances led to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and therefore, the lower courts did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress. View "State v. Olson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs - all minors at the relevant times - were all trafficked through advertisements posted on Backpage.com. Plaintiffs filed suit against Backpage, alleging that Backpage tailored its website to facilitate sex traffickers’ efforts to advertise their victims on the website, leading to Appellants’ victimization. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Backpage engaged in sex trafficking of minors as defined by the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and its Massachusetts counterpart, violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, and abridgments of intellectual property rights. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the facts alleged here did not state grounds that Plaintiffs were plausibly entitled to relief on their claims. View "Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the State Bar, alleging a due process claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that the State Bar’s rules applied the same standards and procedures for reinstatement for disbarred attorneys to attorneys suspended for more than 90 days, amounted to “defacto disbarment,” and violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The district court dismissed the complaint as barred by the Eleventh Amendment and then denied plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment. Determining that the court has jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's appeal, the court agreed with the district court's conclusion that the Alabama State Bar is an arm of the state of Alabama and thus enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity from plaintiff's section 1983 claim. Further, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's FRCP 59(e) motion where, to the extent plaintiff contends his due process claim was a “direct action” under the Fourteenth Amendment, his amended complaint did not allege such a claim, and he could not use his Rule 59(e) motion to do so. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Nichols v. Alabama State Bar" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Illinois and the Board after the Board refused to put plaintiff's name on the ballot for a local government election in 2015. The district court dismissed plaintiff's amended complaint. The court concluded that, in this case, all three requirements of claim preclusion are satisfied where the parties in the state and federal actions are the same, and the Circuit Court of Cook County's order dismissing plaintiff's petitions for judicial review are a final judgment on the merits. Nor is there any doubt that the state court was competent to resolve plaintiff's federal claims. Finally, both the state and federal actions are clearly predicated on the same set of operative facts and are therefore the same cause of action under Illinois law; the state court proceedings to which plaintiff voluntarily submitted were constitutionally adequate; and plaintiff had a fair opportunity to appeal the state court's decision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, concluding that plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims in state court, and the minimum procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause were met. View "Rose v. Board of Election Commissioner" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Sheriff Arpaio, Maricopa County, and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO), alleging that defendants violated federal law by racially profiling Latino drivers and passengers and stopping them under the guise of enforcing federal and state immigration laws. The court issued an opinion mostly affirming the district court's decision to enter a permanent injunction enjoining Sheriff Arpaio and MCSO from conducting racially discriminatory traffic stops (Melendres II). The court also concluded that the MCSO had improperly been named as a party in the action and the court ordered that Maricopa County be substituted in place of MCSO. Maricopa County now appeals from four district court orders entered between December 2011 and April 2014, which are the same orders that Sheriff Arpaio and MCSO appealed from previously in Melendres II. The court concluded that the County failed to carry its burden of invoking the court's jurisdiction and the court dismissed the appeal because the County's notice of appeal was untimely filed under 28 U.S.C. 2107(a) and Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The court rejected the County's arguments to the contrary and dismissed the appeal. View "Melendres v. Maricopa Cnty." on Justia Law

The Institute, a Section 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, filed suit against the FEC, challenging the constitutionality of the disclosure requirements of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 52 U.S.C. 20104(f). The district court denied the Institute's request to convene a three-judge district court pursuant to the statutory provision that requires three-judge district courts for constitutional challenges to the BCRA. On the merits, the district court held that the Institute's claim was unavailing under McConnell v. FEC, and Citizens United V. FEC. The Institute appealed. The court concluded that, because the Institute’s complaint raises a First Amendment challenge to a provision of BCRA, 28 U.S.C. 2284(a) entitles it to a three-judge district court. In this case, the Institute’s attempt to advance its as-applied First Amendment challenge is not “essentially fictitious, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, and obviously without merit.” Therefore, section 2284 “entitles” the Institute to make its case “before a three-judge district court.” Accordingly, the court reversed and vacated the district court's judgment, remanding for further proceedings. View "Independence Institute v. FEC" on Justia Law

A 2012 car accident rendered Hernandez a quadriplegic. He was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence involving an accident causing death. Hernandez was taken into custody while he was hospitalized for treatment of pressure wounds. Under Cook County Sheriff’s Office policy, officers must shackle one hand and one foot of a hospitalized pre‐trial detainee to his hospital bed. Hernandez was shackled and sent to Cook County Jail, then immediately transferred to Stroger Hospital, where he remained from March 14 to April 18, 2013; the shackling continued. Hernandez claims that doctors had instructed him to move every two hours to help his sores heal, and that the shackling stunted his recovery. Hernandez complained orally. The grievance process, described in a handbook that Hernandez did not receive, states that an inmate must file a written grievance within 15 days of the alleged incident. Hernandez never filed a written grievance. After discharge from Stroger, he entered the jail general population. Unable to write, he had other inmates write and file grievances, including an August 3, 2013, grievance stating that nursing staff refused to help him move between his chair and his bed. Hernandez received a response on September 11 and appealed. On February 19, 2014, Hernandez filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The district court stated that Hernandez’s oral complaints constituted a proper grievance but held that Hernandez had not exhausted his administrative remedies and dismissed. The Seventh Circuit remanded, finding that Hernandez did exhaust his remedies. View "Hernandez v. Dart" on Justia Law