Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Wil and Deborah Hansen, acting as grandparents and legal guardians of their grandchild J.L., paid tuition for J.L. to attend full-day kindergarten in Boise School District No. 1 during the 2017–2018 school year. The Hansens paid $2,250 for the second half of the kindergarten day, which they alleged violated the Idaho Constitution’s guarantee of free public education and constituted a taking of property without due process. In 2023, they filed a proposed class action seeking reimbursement and a declaration that the School District’s tuition policy was unconstitutional. The Hansens attempted to assert claims both in their own right and on behalf of J.L., arguing that J.L. was entitled to statutory tolling for minors under Idaho law.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, dismissed the Hansens’ federal takings and state inverse condemnation claims as time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitation. The court found that only the Hansens, not J.L., had standing to pursue the claims, and that the two-year and four-year statutes of limitation for the federal and state claims, respectively, had expired. The court denied the Hansens’ motion for reconsideration, and the Hansens appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court held that J.L. lacked standing to assert a Fifth Amendment takings claim because he did not personally pay the tuition or suffer a deprivation of property, and there was no allegation that he was denied educational opportunities. The Court further held that the Hansens’ Fifth Amendment claim was time-barred under Idaho’s two-year statute of limitation for such claims, and the minority tolling statute did not apply. The School District was awarded costs on appeal. View "Hansen v. Boise School Dist #1" on Justia Law

A group of institutional investors brought a class action lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company and several of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws after the company’s share price dropped significantly following the rejection of a takeover bid and subsequent negative financial disclosures. One large investor, Sculptor, intended to pursue its own individual lawsuit rather than participate in the class action. The District Court certified the class and issued a notice specifying the procedure and deadline for class members to opt out. Although Sculptor intended to opt out, its counsel failed to submit the required exclusion request by the deadline. Both Sculptor and the company proceeded for years as if Sculptor had opted out, litigating the individual action and treating Sculptor as an opt-out plaintiff.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey later approved a class settlement, which prompted the discovery that Sculptor had never formally opted out. Sculptor then sought to be excluded from the class after the deadline, arguing that its conduct showed a reasonable intent to opt out, that its failure was due to excusable neglect, and that the class notice was inadequate. The District Court rejected these arguments, finding that only compliance with the court’s specified opt-out procedure sufficed, that Sculptor’s neglect was not excusable under the relevant legal standard, and that the notice met due process requirements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The Third Circuit held that a class member must follow the opt-out procedures established by the district court under Rule 23; a mere “reasonable indication” of intent to opt out is insufficient. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying Sculptor’s late opt-out request and concluded that the class notice satisfied due process. View "Perrigo Institutional Investor Group v. Papa" on Justia Law

A group of individuals in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) filed a lawsuit in 2007, alleging inadequate mental healthcare. The case developed into a class action, and in 2016, the parties reached a settlement agreement that required IDOC to meet specific mental-health treatment benchmarks. The agreement included a provision for $1.9 million in attorney’s fees to be paid to plaintiffs’ counsel if the court granted relief for violations of the agreement. In 2018, the district court found IDOC in breach and issued an injunction, triggering the fee provision. While the defendants appealed, the parties entered into further agreements, resulting in the $1.9 million being paid to plaintiffs’ counsel.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois later extended its enforcement jurisdiction over the settlement agreement, but after the expiration of that jurisdiction, the court returned the case to its active docket. The parties continued to litigate, with plaintiffs filing amended complaints and defendants moving to dismiss. More than a year after resuming active litigation, the district court raised concerns about its subject-matter jurisdiction, ultimately concluding that its jurisdiction over the underlying claims ended when its enforcement jurisdiction over the settlement agreement expired. The court dismissed all claims and denied the defendants’ motion to recover the $1.9 million in attorney’s fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that, under the parties’ agreements, the payment of $1.9 million in attorney’s fees to plaintiffs’ counsel was proper and did not need to be returned, even after the district court’s injunction was vacated. The court also vacated the district court’s dismissal of the underlying claims, remanding for the district court to determine whether the settlement agreement moots those claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion to recover the attorney’s fees. View "Daniels v. Jones" on Justia Law

A website visitor in Pennsylvania interacted with a retail website that used session replay code provided by a third party to record her mouse movements, clicks, and keystrokes. The visitor did not enter any sensitive or personal information during her session. She later brought a putative class action against the website operator, alleging that the use of session replay code constituted intrusion upon seclusion and violated the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA).The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing because she did not allege a concrete injury. The court reasoned that the mere recording of her website activity, which did not include any personal or sensitive information, was not analogous to harms traditionally recognized at common law, such as disclosure of private information or intrusion upon seclusion. The court also found that amendment would be futile.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and agreed that the plaintiff failed to allege a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing. The Third Circuit held that the alleged harm was not closely related to the traditional privacy torts of disclosure of private information or intrusion upon seclusion, as the information recorded was neither sensitive nor publicly disclosed, and there was no intrusion into the plaintiff’s solitude or private affairs. The court also clarified that a statutory violation alone does not automatically confer standing without a concrete harm. However, the Third Circuit determined that the District Court erred in dismissing the complaint with prejudice and modified the order to a dismissal without prejudice, affirming the order as modified. View "Cook v. GameStop, Inc." on Justia Law

A plaintiff, Alin Pop, filed a putative class action against LuliFama.com LLC and other defendants, including several social media influencers, alleging a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). Pop claimed he purchased Luli Fama swimwear after seeing influencers endorse the products on Instagram without disclosing they were paid for their endorsements. Pop argued that this non-disclosure was deceptive and violated FDUTPA.The case was initially filed in Florida state court but was removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and the district court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The court held that because Pop's FDUTPA claim sounded in fraud, it was subject to the heightened pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The court found that Pop's complaint failed to meet this standard as it did not specify which posts led to his purchase, which defendants made those posts, when the posts were made, or which products he bought. The court also found that the complaint failed to state a claim under the ordinary pleading standards.Pop appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, agreeing that Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement applies to FDUTPA claims that sound in fraud. The court found that Pop's allegations closely tracked the elements of common law fraud and thus required particularity in pleading. The court also held that Pop failed to properly request leave to amend his complaint, and therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint with prejudice. View "Pop v. LuliFama.com LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in state court against Defendants, alleging violations of state securities laws. Defendants removed the case to federal court under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), arguing that the case involved covered securities. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to exclude any claims related to covered securities, leading the district court to remand the case to state court. After three years of state court litigation, Defendants removed the case again, citing an expert report that allegedly identified covered securities. The district court remanded the case again and awarded Plaintiffs $63,007.50 in attorneys' fees.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina initially denied Plaintiffs' motion to remand but later granted it after Plaintiffs amended their complaint. The court found that the amended complaint excluded any claims related to covered securities, thus SLUSA did not apply, and no federal question remained. After Defendants removed the case a second time, the district court remanded it again and awarded attorneys' fees, finding the second removal lacked a reasonable basis.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's award of attorneys' fees. The court held that the second removal was improper because the amended complaint explicitly excluded claims related to covered securities, and thus SLUSA did not apply. Additionally, the court found that the removal was objectively unreasonable, as the district court had already addressed the issues in its first remand order. The Fourth Circuit also denied Plaintiffs' request for additional attorneys' fees for defending the appeal, stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) does not authorize fee awards on appeal. View "Black v. Mantei & Associates, Ltd." on Justia Law

Linda Martin filed a class action lawsuit against the FBI, alleging that the Notice of Seizure provided to property owners did not meet the Due Process requirements under the Fifth Amendment. The FBI had seized $40,200 from Martin's safe deposit box and issued a Notice of Seizure, which Martin claimed lacked specific legal or factual bases for the seizure, thus denying her a meaningful opportunity to respond. Martin sought declaratory and injunctive relief for herself and a proposed nationwide class of individuals who had received similar notices.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Martin's individual claim as moot after the FBI returned her seized property. The court also dismissed the class action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to state a plausible Due Process claim. The court found that Martin had an adequate opportunity to present her Due Process challenge during the administrative proceedings and that her claim was moot because the FBI had returned her property.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Martin's individual claim as moot, as the FBI had returned her property. The court also dismissed the appeal of the class certification judgment for lack of jurisdiction, noting that Martin had not challenged the denial of class certification in her appellate briefs. The court concluded that without a certified class, it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's merits rulings on the Due Process and exhaustion claims. View "Martin v. FBI" on Justia Law

Eight citizens of Mali alleged that, as children, they were trafficked to Côte d’Ivoire and forced to work without pay on small, remote cocoa farms. After eventually returning to Mali, they brought a putative class action in the United States against seven major cocoa importers, claiming the companies violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) by knowingly benefiting from a supply chain that relied on forced child labor. The plaintiffs asserted that the importers orchestrated and controlled a cocoa supply chain “venture” and delayed meaningful action against child labor through their leadership of the World Cocoa Foundation.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to connect the defendants to any specific cocoa plantations, including those where the plaintiffs had worked. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ general, industry-wide allegations lacked the specificity required to establish causation under Article III of the Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held the appeal in abeyance pending resolution of a similar case, Doe 1 v. Apple Inc.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they did not plausibly allege facts showing a causal connection between their forced labor and the importers’ conduct. Specifically, the complaint failed to allege that the importers sourced cocoa, directly or through intermediaries, from the specific farms where the plaintiffs worked. The court distinguished this case from Doe 1 v. Apple Inc., where plaintiffs had plausibly traced their injuries to the defendants’ suppliers. The dismissal was affirmed. View "Coubaly v. Cargill Incorporated" on Justia Law

Adam Steele and Krystal Comer, tax return preparers, challenged the IRS's requirement to obtain or renew a Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN) by completing Form W-12, which involves paying a fee and disclosing personal information. They initially joined a class action in 2014 contesting the IRS's authority to impose these fees and the amount of information required by Form W-12. However, class counsel later withdrew these claims. Steele and Comer then attempted to revive these claims in a separate lawsuit.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed their complaint, citing the rule against claim-splitting, which prevents duplicative litigation between the same parties asserting the same claims, even without a final judgment in the first case. The district court found that Steele and Comer had already raised and then withdrawn these claims in the ongoing class action and were denied leave to amend the complaint to reassert them.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) does not bar judicial review of the IRS's authority to demand information through Form W-12, but the rule against claim-splitting still precludes the plaintiffs' suit. The court emphasized that claim-splitting bars duplicative litigation filed before final judgment and that Steele and Comer had a fair opportunity to litigate their claims in the earlier class action. The court concluded that the district court's dismissal was proper to prevent strategic end runs around procedural rulings and to preserve the integrity of the adjudicative process. View "Steele v. United States" on Justia Law

Eugene Westmoreland, an Illinois inmate who uses a wheelchair, filed a class action lawsuit seeking prospective relief to make the showers at the Northern Reception and Classification Center (NRC) accessible. He claimed the showers were inaccessible to individuals using mobility aids. Westmoreland filed the suit without first using the prison's internal grievance process as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Six weeks after filing, he was transferred to a different facility with accessible showers, which led to questions about the mootness of his claim.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Westmoreland's suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding his claim moot due to his transfer. The court also determined that no exception to mootness applied, as Westmoreland had not exhausted the internal grievance process, making him an inadequate class representative.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Westmoreland's transfer rendered his claim moot and that he did not qualify for any exceptions to mootness. The court also found that Westmoreland's failure to exhaust the grievance process as required by the PLRA made him an inadequate class representative, preventing the class action from proceeding. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of the suit. View "Westmoreland v. Hughes" on Justia Law