Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A train operated by Norfolk Southern carrying hazardous materials derailed near East Palestine, Ohio, in February 2023. The cleanup released toxic chemicals into the surrounding area, prompting affected residents and businesses to file suit against the railroad and other parties in federal court. These cases were consolidated into a master class action, and after extensive discovery and mediation, Norfolk Southern agreed to a $600 million settlement for the class. The district court for the Northern District of Ohio approved the settlement in September 2024. Five class members objected and appealed, but the district court required them to post an $850,000 appeal bond by January 30, 2025, to cover administrative and taxable costs. The objectors did not pay the bond or offer a lesser amount.After the bond order, the objectors filed a motion in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to eliminate or reduce the bond, but did not seek a stay. The Sixth Circuit motions panel explained that, absent a separate notice of appeal, it could only address the bond on a motion to stay, which the objectors expressly disclaimed. The objectors then moved in the district court to extend the time to appeal the bond order, but did so one day after the deadline set by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A). The district court denied the motion as untimely, finding it lacked jurisdiction to grant an extension.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the deadlines for appealing and requesting extensions are jurisdictional and cannot be equitably extended. The court dismissed the objectors’ appeal of the motion to extend for lack of jurisdiction and granted the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the objectors’ appeals of the settlement for failure to pay the required bond. View "In re E. Palestine Train Derailment" on Justia Law

Cocoa AJ Holdings, LLC is the developer of a mixed-use condominium project in San Francisco known as GS Heritage Place, which includes both timeshare and whole residential units. Stephen Schneider owns a timeshare interest in one of the fractional units and has voting rights in the homeowners association. In 2018, Schneider filed a class action lawsuit against Cocoa and others, alleging improper management practices, including the use of fractional units as hotel rooms and misallocation of expenses. The parties settled that lawsuit in 2020, with Schneider agreeing not to disparage Cocoa or solicit further claims against it, and to cooperate constructively in future dealings.In 2022, Schneider initiated another lawsuit against Cocoa. In response, Cocoa filed a cross-complaint against Schneider, alleging intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, breach of contract (the settlement agreement), unjust enrichment, and defamation. Cocoa claimed Schneider engaged in a campaign to prevent the sale of unsold units as whole units, formed unofficial owner groups, made disparaging statements, and threatened litigation, all of which allegedly violated the prior settlement agreement and harmed Cocoa’s economic interests.Schneider moved to strike the cross-complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16), arguing that Cocoa’s claims arose from his protected activities—namely, petitioning the courts and speaking on matters of public interest related to association management. The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco granted Schneider’s motion, finding that all claims in the cross-complaint arose from protected activity and that Cocoa failed to show a probability of prevailing on the merits.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court’s order. The court held that Cocoa’s claims were based on Schneider’s protected litigation and association management activities, and that Cocoa did not establish a likelihood of success on any of its claims. View "Cocoa AJ Holdings, LLC v. Schneider" on Justia Law

After a series of chemical explosions at an industrial plant in Crosby, Texas, following Hurricane Harvey, property owners and lessees in the affected area experienced contamination and property damage. These individuals, including the appellants, initially participated in a federal class action seeking both injunctive and monetary relief for the harm caused by the explosions. The federal district court certified a class for injunctive relief but declined to certify a class for monetary damages. Subsequently, a class settlement addressed only injunctive relief, leaving monetary claims unresolved.Following the settlement, nearly 800 class members, including the appellants, filed individual lawsuits in Texas state court seeking monetary damages for their property-related claims. The appellants acknowledged that their claims accrued in September 2017 and were subject to a two-year statute of limitations, but argued that the pendency of the federal class action tolled the limitations period under Texas law. Arkema, the defendant, removed the cases to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and moved to dismiss, asserting that Texas does not recognize cross-jurisdictional tolling—meaning a federal class action does not toll the state statute of limitations. The district court consolidated the cases and dismissed the claims as untimely, relying on Fifth Circuit precedent.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that, under its binding precedent, Texas law does not permit cross-jurisdictional tolling of statutes of limitations based on the pendency of a federal class action. The court rejected the appellants’ arguments for exceptions to this rule and found no intervening Texas authority to the contrary. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the appellants’ claims as time-barred. View "Ackerman v. Arkema" on Justia Law

Nathan Gault was a party to a divorce action in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas. After the case concluded, the clerk charged him various fees, including a “Clerk Computer Operation” fee. Gault believed he had been overcharged, specifically challenging the additional dollar per page fee assessed for making a complete record of the proceedings. He filed a class-action complaint against the clerk, the county treasurer, and the county itself, alleging that the clerk charged him $125 in computer-operation fees, which was over $100 more than statutorily authorized.The Medina County Court of Common Pleas initially granted judgment on the pleadings for the defendants, finding Gault’s claim barred by res judicata. The Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that res judicata did not apply because the total amount owed and the methodology for determining the fees were not ascertainable from the final judgment in the divorce action, and the defendants were not parties to the prior proceedings. On remand, the trial court again ruled for the defendants, interpreting the statutes to permit the clerk to charge two dollars per page—one dollar under R.C. 2303.20(H) and an additional dollar under former R.C. 2303.201(B)(1). The Ninth District reversed, concluding that only one additional dollar total could be charged for the service, not one dollar per page.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case, consolidating a discretionary appeal and a certified conflict. The court held that, under the plain text of former R.C. 2303.201(B)(1), the clerk may charge only one additional dollar total for making a complete record under R.C. 2303.20(H), regardless of the number of pages. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment of the Ninth District Court of Appeals. View "State ex rel. Gault v. Medina Cty. Court of Common Pleas Clerk" on Justia Law

Noah Gilbert purchased a motor vehicle insurance policy from Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company, initially declining underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage but later adding a UIM endorsement with $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident limits. The policy included an offset provision, reducing any UIM payout by amounts received from another party’s insurance. Gilbert paid premiums for this coverage but never filed a UIM claim or experienced an accident triggering such coverage. He later filed a putative class action, alleging that Progressive’s UIM coverage was illusory under Idaho law and asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, fraud, and constructive fraud.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court raised the issue of standing and ultimately held that Gilbert lacked standing because he had not filed a claim or been denied coverage, and thus had not suffered an injury-in-fact. Alternatively, the court found that Gilbert’s claims failed on the merits: there was no breach of contract or bad faith without a denied claim, no damages to support fraud or constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment was unavailable due to the existence of a valid contract. The court granted summary judgment for Progressive and denied Gilbert’s motion for class certification as moot.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho held that Gilbert did have standing, as payment of premiums for allegedly illusory coverage constituted a concrete injury. However, the Court affirmed the district court’s judgment, finding that Gilbert’s claims failed on the merits because he never filed a claim, was never denied coverage, and did not incur damages. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, as an enforceable contract provided an adequate legal remedy. The judgment in favor of Progressive was affirmed. View "Gilbert v. Progressive Northwestern Insurance Co." on Justia Law

A group of borrowers in California brought a class action against Flagstar Bank, alleging that the bank failed to pay interest on their mortgage escrow accounts as required by California Civil Code § 2954.8(a). Flagstar did not pay interest on these accounts, arguing that the National Bank Act (NBA) preempted the California law, and therefore, it was not obligated to comply. The plaintiffs sought restitution for the unpaid interest.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, relying on the Ninth Circuit’s prior decision in Lusnak v. Bank of America, N.A., granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs. The court ordered Flagstar to pay restitution and prejudgment interest to the class. Flagstar appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Lusnak foreclosed Flagstar’s preemption argument. However, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to correct the class definition date and the judgment amount due to errors in the statute of limitations tolling and calculation of damages.On remand from the United States Supreme Court, following its decision in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether it could overrule Lusnak in light of Cantero. The court held that Cantero did not render Lusnak “clearly irreconcilable” with Supreme Court precedent, and therefore, the panel lacked authority to overrule Lusnak. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the NBA does not preempt California’s interest-on-escrow law, but vacated and remanded the judgment and class certification order for modification of the class definition date and judgment amount. View "KIVETT V. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB" on Justia Law

Several residents of a recreational vehicle park in Oregon brought a class action lawsuit against the park’s owners and managers, alleging that the park’s utility billing practices violated the Oregon Residential Landlord Tenant Act (ORLTA). Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that they were charged for electricity at rates higher than the actual cost and were improperly assessed meter reading fees. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class covering a ten-year period prior to the filing of the complaint, arguing that the statute of limitations should be tolled until tenants discovered or reasonably should have discovered the alleged violations.The Marion County Circuit Court agreed with the plaintiffs, holding that the one-year statute of limitations in ORS 12.125 incorporated a discovery rule. The court certified a class including tenants who paid the disputed charges during the ten years before the complaint was filed, provided they did not or should not have discovered the facts giving rise to their claims more than one year before filing. The court later granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs, found the defendants liable, and awarded substantial damages and attorney fees.On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s class certification and related rulings, holding that ORS 12.125 does not include a discovery rule and that the one-year limitations period is not tolled by a plaintiff’s lack of knowledge of the claim. The plaintiffs sought review of this issue.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The court held that ORS 12.125 does not incorporate a discovery rule; the one-year statute of limitations begins to run when the alleged violation or breach occurs, not when the plaintiff discovers it. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hathaway v. B & J Property Investments, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, representing themselves and a putative class, purchased Kleenex Germ Removal Wet Wipes manufactured by Kimberly-Clark Corporation. They alleged that the product’s labeling misled consumers into believing the wipes contained germicides and would kill germs, rather than merely wiping them away with soap. Plaintiffs claimed that this misrepresentation violated several California consumer protection statutes. The wipes were sold nationwide, and the plaintiffs included both California and non-California residents.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California first dismissed the non-California plaintiffs’ claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the remaining claims under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that the labels would not plausibly deceive a reasonable consumer. The court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) without leave to amend, and plaintiffs appealed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether subject-matter jurisdiction existed under diversity jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) and 1332(d)(2). The court found that the SAC failed to allege Kimberly-Clark’s citizenship and did not state the amount in controversy. The panel held that diversity of citizenship cannot be established by judicial notice alone and that the complaint must affirmatively allege the amount in controversy. Plaintiffs were permitted to submit a proposed Third Amended Complaint (TAC), which successfully alleged diversity of citizenship but failed to plausibly allege the required amount in controversy for either statutory basis. The court concluded that neither it nor the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction and vacated the district court’s judgment, remanding with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice. The panel denied further leave to amend, finding that additional amendment would be futile. View "ROSENWALD V. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION" on Justia Law

Two individuals applied for jobs at a retail liquor store chain in Washington after a new state law required employers to include wage and benefit information in all job postings. Both applicants submitted their applications through a third-party website, Indeed.com, where the postings did not include the required pay information. One of the applicants also interviewed in person and discussed pay with the store manager but ultimately declined a job offer. Both individuals then filed a class action lawsuit, seeking statutory damages for the employer’s failure to comply with the disclosure requirements.The case was initially brought in King County, Washington. The employer argued that the plaintiffs were not the type of “job applicants” the law was intended to protect, asserting that only those with a genuine or “bona fide” interest in the job should be eligible for remedies. The parties disagreed on the meaning of “job applicant” under the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA). The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, faced with this dispute, certified a question to the Washington Supreme Court, asking what a plaintiff must prove to be considered a “job applicant” under the statute.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that, under RCW 49.58.110(4), a person qualifies as a “job applicant” if they apply to a specific job posting, regardless of their subjective intent or whether they are a “bona fide” or “good faith” applicant. The court concluded that the plain language of the statute does not require proof of genuine interest in the position, and that the legislature intentionally omitted such a requirement. The court’s answer clarified that subjective intent is irrelevant for eligibility to seek remedies under the EPOA. View "Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiff purchased a life insurance policy for her son and consistently paid the required premiums. She alleges that the insurer failed to provide the statutory notices and protections mandated by California law before terminating her policy for nonpayment. After missing a payment in 2016, her policy lapsed, and following reinstatement, it was terminated again in 2018 after another missed payment. The plaintiff contends that the insurer’s failure to comply with statutory notice requirements rendered the termination ineffective and that her experience was representative of many other policyholders in California.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted in part the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The court found that the prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) were met and certified a class under Rule 23(b)(2) for declaratory and injunctive relief. The certified class included all policy owners or beneficiaries whose policies lapsed for nonpayment without the required statutory notice. The court appointed the plaintiff as class representative but denied, without prejudice, certification for monetary relief under Rule 23(b)(3).The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s class-certification order. Relying on its intervening decision in Small v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America, the Ninth Circuit held that to recover for violations of the relevant California statutes, plaintiffs must show not only a statutory violation but also that the violation caused them harm. The court found that the plaintiff was not an adequate class representative for beneficiaries and that her claims were not typical of class members who intentionally allowed their policies to lapse. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s class-certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Farley v. Lincoln Benefit Life Co." on Justia Law