Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A train carrying hazardous chemicals derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, resulting in a release of dangerous substances into the environment. This incident led to a class-action lawsuit involving nearly half a million residents. After extensive environmental testing and expert analysis, both sides reached a settlement to avoid prolonged litigation. The settlement established a $600 million fund, allowing residents to receive direct payments and, if desired, additional compensation for waiving personal injury claims. Those with extraordinary losses or injuries could submit claims for further individualized consideration.Prior to this appeal, some objectors challenged the settlement, asserting that class counsel should have reviewed and disclosed more expert evidence regarding long-term risks. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, after a fairness hearing, approved the settlement and rejected these objections. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed that approval, citing the adequacy and fairness of the settlement process and the sufficiency of the evidence considered.A small group of residents who had waived personal injury claims subsequently sought relief from the settlement, alleging fraud and misconduct by class counsel and Norfolk Southern. The Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court's denial of relief under Rule 60 for abuse of discretion. The court held that the movants failed to demonstrate fraud on the court, fraud by an opposing party, or extraordinary circumstances warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(3), 60(d)(3), or 60(b)(6). The court further concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing. The main holding is that the settlement approval stands and the movants are not entitled to relief from judgment. The disposition by the Sixth Circuit is affirmed. View "In re: E. Palestine Train Derailment" on Justia Law

Five individuals who participated as peaceful protesters and independent journalists at demonstrations outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland, Oregon, alleged that federal law enforcement officers targeted them with non-lethal crowd-control munitions such as tear gas and pepper balls. The plaintiffs claimed this was retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights. The protests, which occurred between June 2025 and February 2026, often involved both peaceful dissent and significant unrest, including vandalism, trespassing, and obstruction of law enforcement. The plaintiffs were exposed to crowd-control devices during these protests, frequently while in proximity to unlawful activity.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting federal officers from using non-lethal munitions except against individuals posing an imminent threat of physical harm, and ordered that agents’ uniforms be redesigned with conspicuous identifying markings. The district court also certified a provisional class encompassing all individuals who had protested or reported on DHS activities at the Portland ICE facility since June 2025, and denied the government’s motion to stay the injunction pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s orders. The Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and provisional class certification, holding that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on their First Amendment claim. The court found no evidence of an unwritten policy or pattern of retaliation by DHS and held that law enforcement may use non-lethal force to clear crowds and restore order without waiting for an imminent threat of physical harm. The injunction was found to be overbroad, improperly granting relief to non-parties, and unworkable. The class certification was vacated for lack of commonality and failure to satisfy Rule 23(b)(2)’s indivisible-remedy requirement. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Apria Healthcare provides home healthcare products and services, employing delivery drivers through third-party agencies and licensed vocational nurses directly. Travis Smith and Uriel Arauz, both former employees, commenced a class action against Apria in Sutter County Superior Court alleging wage and hour violations on behalf of similarly situated employees. Proposed interveners Angela Tisdale and Terrance Pratt are former delivery drivers and named plaintiffs in a separate, related federal action against Apria for similar wage and hour claims, covering delivery drivers hired after the class certification date in another Los Angeles County action.The Sutter County Superior Court preliminarily approved a settlement in the Smith action, which conditionally certified a class and found the settlement fair. Tisdale and Pratt, concerned about a collusive “reverse auction” settlement that might undermine the rights of putative class members in their federal action, filed an ex parte application to intervene in the Smith action after the court’s preliminary approval and class notice. Their application was supported by evidence of their early awareness and concern over the settlement process, but was filed several months after those concerns were first raised.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, reviewed the trial court’s denial of the intervention application. The appellate court held that Tisdale and Pratt’s application was untimely, noting that they knew or should have known of risks to their interests well before filing, and their delay prejudiced the settlement process and the original parties. The court affirmed the trial court’s order denying intervention, concluding that the untimeliness of the application defeated both mandatory and permissive intervention. Respondents were awarded costs on appeal. View "Smith v. Apria Healthcare" on Justia Law

Chatham County established a fire protection service fee, assessed either as a flat charge per parcel or based on the square footage of structures, on all real property in a special district comprising unincorporated areas of the county. Initially, fire services were provided by Chatham Emergency Services, Inc. (CES), funded by direct payments from property owners. When payment rates fell and CES could no longer provide services as before, the county contracted with CES and adopted a fire service protection tax, later replaced by the Fire Protection Service Fee Ordinance in 2022 and revised in 2023. The fee was collected from property owners in the designated area, with enforcement measures including penalties, collection costs, and potential liens.Property owners Damon L. and Sebrell E. Smith, subject to the fee, filed a class action in the Superior Court of Chatham County, seeking refunds. They contended the fee was actually an illegal tax because it was not ad valorem, as required by Georgia law. The county moved to dismiss and for summary judgment, while the plaintiffs sought class certification and summary judgment. After discovery and hearings, the superior court certified the class and granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding the fire fee was a tax on real property and invalid because it was not assessed ad valorem.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case de novo. The Court agreed with the lower court that the fire protection service fee was, in substance, a tax rather than a fee or assessment. It further held that, under Georgia constitutional and statutory law, taxes on real property—including those levied in special districts—must be ad valorem. Because the county’s ordinance imposed a non-ad-valorem tax, it was unauthorized and illegal. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the superior court’s judgment in favor of the property owners. View "CHATHAM COUNTY v. SMITH" on Justia Law

Insurance companies paid claims to policyholders whose Hyundai or Kia vehicles were stolen or damaged due to a vulnerability stemming from the lack of an engine immobilizer in certain models from 2011 to 2022. These companies, as subrogees, filed a nationwide class action alleging that the Korean manufacturers, Hyundai Motor Company and Kia Corporation, defectively designed these vehicles, making them prone to theft. The complaint also asserted claims for breach of warranties, violations of consumer protection statutes, fraud, unjust enrichment, and negligent failure to warn.Multiple lawsuits arising from this issue were consolidated into multidistrict litigation before the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The district court dismissed the claims against the Korean entities for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that the evidence did not establish intentional targeting of California by the manufacturers and that the claims did not arise from California-related conduct. The district court also denied leave to amend and jurisdictional discovery, entering final judgment under Rule 54(b) dismissing the Korean entities from the subrogation track.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Ninth Circuit held that the Korean manufacturers were subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California. The panel found that the manufacturers purposefully directed their activities toward California by sending thousands of shipments of vehicles through California ports and designing vehicles specifically for the U.S. market. The court further held that the claims arose out of these California contacts, as the injuries were caused by vehicles shipped to California. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, leaving the question of reasonableness of jurisdiction for the district court to resolve. View "IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who had donated funds to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, alleged that the Church and its investment subsidiary, Ensign Peak Advisors, Inc., fraudulently induced donations by concealing the true use and accumulation of donated funds. They claimed that the Church misrepresented that tithing would be used for charitable and religious purposes, when instead large portions were invested and used for commercial ventures, such as the development of the City Creek Mall. A key event in the case was the publication of a whistleblower report in December 2019, which was widely reported in national and local media and described how the Church managed and concealed a large investment portfolio. The Church publicly responded, and three other lawsuits were filed by different donors based on similar allegations.After actions were filed in several federal district courts, the cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Plaintiffs brought claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, seeking to represent a nationwide class of post-1997 donors. The district court dismissed the consolidated complaint with prejudice, ruling that the claims were untimely under Utah’s three-year statute of limitations for fraud. The court found that the widespread news coverage of the whistleblower report meant that plaintiffs, exercising reasonable diligence, should have discovered the alleged fraud more than three years before filing suit.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Tenth Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred because the whistleblower report and related media coverage provided sufficient public notice to trigger the statute of limitations, and that reasonable diligence would have led to earlier discovery. The court also found no error in the district court’s procedural rulings and denied the request for leave to amend. View "In re: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" on Justia Law

A family group brought claims in Oklahoma state court against an energy company, alleging underpayment of oil and gas royalties over several decades. These claims overlapped with those in a separate class action brought by another party against the company and its related entities, also concerning underpayment of royalties. The class action was removed to federal court, where a settlement was reached and approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The settlement covered claims for a defined period, and included a permanent injunction barring class members from pursuing similar claims. The family did not opt out of the settlement and received compensation under its terms.Later, the energy company sought summary judgment in the family’s original state case, arguing that the federal settlement released the company from liability for claims during the covered period. When summary judgment was denied, the company returned to the federal district court, seeking enforcement of the settlement’s injunction against further pursuit of those claims by the family in state court. The federal court declined to issue a new injunction but found that the family’s ongoing litigation of released claims violated the original injunction. The court ordered the family to either show cause for their violation or agree to abide by the injunction and dismiss the released claims. The family appealed this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.The Tenth Circuit determined that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the order. The court held that a post-judgment civil contempt or enforcement order is not final and appealable unless the district court both finds contempt and imposes a specific, unavoidable sanction. Because the district court’s order did neither, and because no alternative grounds for appellate jurisdiction applied, the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal. View "Fischer v. XTO Energy" on Justia Law

A healthcare staffing company hired an employee as a travel nurse, requiring him to sign multiple agreements containing arbitration provisions with varying language. When the employee later accepted a temporary assignment at a hospital, he signed an additional agreement incorporating the employer’s most recent arbitration policy. After his assignment ended, the employee filed a class action lawsuit alleging wage and hour violations against the company.The company responded by filing a motion in the Superior Court of San Diego County to compel arbitration, relying on the arbitration provision from the employee handbook. The employee opposed, arguing that the handbook’s provision was superseded by the newer arbitration agreement incorporated into his most recent assignment. The court denied the motion, finding that the company had relied on the wrong agreement. The company then filed a second motion to compel arbitration, this time based on the updated agreement, but failed to provide the affidavit or explanation required by California Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 for renewed motions. The employee objected, contending that the second motion sought the same relief as the first and was subject to section 1008(b), which the company had not satisfied. The Superior Court agreed, ruled it lacked jurisdiction to consider the renewed motion, and denied it.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed whether the trial court properly applied section 1008(b) and whether the second motion was a renewed motion for the same relief. The appellate court held that the company’s second motion sought identical relief as the first—compelling arbitration of the same claims—regardless of which agreement formed the basis. Because the company failed to comply with section 1008(b), the trial court lacked jurisdiction, and the order denying the renewed motion was not appealable. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. View "Hickenbottom v. Medical Solutions" on Justia Law

After Missouri legalized recreational marijuana in 2022, local governments were permitted to impose an additional sales tax on dispensaries selling recreational marijuana. Dispensaries passed this tax on to their customers. However, the Missouri Supreme Court later ruled that counties could not levy this additional tax on dispensaries located within incorporated areas such as cities or towns. Following this ruling, a class of customers sued several dispensaries, alleging that the dispensaries unlawfully retained the collected county tax and sought restitution.The dispensaries removed the action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The plaintiffs then amended their complaint to limit the class to Missouri citizens and moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that the Local Controversy Exception to CAFA applied. The district court initially found that three of the four required elements for the exception were met but that the class had not sufficiently shown that more than two-thirds of its members were Missouri citizens. After a second amendment explicitly limited the class to Missouri citizens, the district court found all requirements met and remanded the case to state court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered whether the operative pleading for determining CAFA jurisdiction was the first or second amended complaint. The court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, held that the most recent amended complaint governs jurisdiction. The Eighth Circuit also agreed that the Local Controversy Exception was satisfied and affirmed the district court’s remand order, holding that federal jurisdiction no longer existed once the class was limited to Missouri citizens. View "Vick v. Vertical Enterprise, LLC" on Justia Law

Three individuals filed a class action lawsuit against San Francisco, challenging new water rates adopted by the city’s Public Utility Commission in May 2023. The plaintiffs alleged that the new rates violated Proposition 218 of the California Constitution by including costs unrelated to the actual provision of water service, resulting in charges that exceeded the cost of service. Before adopting the new rates, the city provided required notice to ratepayers, including information about a 120-day period for legal challenges under the applicable validation statutes. The plaintiffs sought a refund, declaratory and equitable relief, and a writ of mandate.After the class action was filed, the City litigated the case for over a year. It participated in discovery, case management, and even moved for summary judgment, without initially arguing that the suit was procedurally improper. Eventually, the City moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that plaintiffs’ action was subject to the validation statutes, specifically Government Code section 53759 and Code of Civil Procedure sections 860 et seq., which require reverse validation actions attacking agency matters like water rates to be brought within 120 days and with specific notice by publication to all interested parties. The trial court (San Francisco County Superior Court) agreed with the City, finding the statutes mandatory and jurisdictional, and dismissed the case for failure to comply with the procedural requirements, including timely filing and appropriate notice.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the judgment de novo. The court held that compliance with the validation statutes was mandatory and jurisdictional. Plaintiffs’ failure to file a proper reverse validation action and to provide notice by publication deprived the court of jurisdiction. The court rejected arguments that the City had waived these requirements or that good cause existed for noncompliance. The judgment in favor of the City was affirmed. View "Toy v. City & County of S.F." on Justia Law