Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

POM of Kansas, LLC, owns and distributes Dragon's Ascent, an arcade game where players shoot dragons for prizes redeemable for cash. Concerned about the game's legality under Kansas law, POM sought approval from state agencies, which declined to provide a formal opinion. POM proceeded with the game's launch and filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that the Kansas Expanded Lottery Act does not apply to Dragon's Ascent, that the game complies with Kansas' criminal gambling statutes, and that those statutes are unconstitutionally vague.The Shawnee District Court dismissed the claims against the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission and the Douglas County District Attorney, ruling that no real controversy existed as neither had investigated the game nor threatened prosecution. The court retained the Kansas Attorney General in the case due to the constitutional challenges raised. The district court later dismissed POM's claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and ruled against the constitutional challenges on the merits.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and focused on the issue of standing. The court held that POM lacked standing to seek a declaratory judgment about the Kansas Expanded Lottery Act because no defendant suggested the Act applied to Dragon's Ascent. The court also found that POM lacked standing to seek a declaration that Dragon's Ascent is lawful under Kansas criminal gambling statutes, as there was no credible threat of prosecution or seizure of the devices. Finally, the court concluded that POM lacked standing to raise a constitutional vagueness challenge to the gambling statutes, as there was no credible threat of prosecution.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of POM's claims regarding the Expanded Lottery Act and the legality of Dragon's Ascent, vacated the ruling on the constitutional vagueness challenge, and remanded the matter for dismissal. View "POM of Kansas v. Kobach" on Justia Law

A mother and her fiancé filed a petition to terminate the biological father's parental rights and allow the fiancé to adopt the child. The mother did not serve the father with the petition, and he did not participate in the proceedings. The magistrate court terminated the father's parental rights and granted the adoption. The father later filed two motions to set aside the judgment, arguing that his due process rights were violated due to lack of notice. The magistrate court denied the second motion, citing res judicata. The district court reversed this decision, finding that the father's due process argument warranted consideration.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the father's Rule 60(b)(4) motion, which alleged a fundamental error violating his constitutional right to due process, was not barred by res judicata. The court applied the fundamental error doctrine, which allows for exceptions to procedural bars when a fundamental constitutional right is at stake. The court also rejected the mother's arguments that the father's motion was barred by the doctrines of claim splitting, invited error, appellate waiver, and the law of the case.The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision to remand the case to the magistrate court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the father's Rule 60(b)(4) motion was timely and whether the termination and adoption judgment was void. The court also awarded the father partial attorney fees on appeal for defending against certain arguments made by the mother. View "Doe v. Doe" on Justia Law

In Michigan, citizens can amend the state constitution through ballot initiatives without legislative approval. Two state senators and nine state representatives challenged the use of such initiatives to regulate federal elections, arguing it violated the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause. They sought to prevent Michigan officials from enforcing these amendments.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed the case, ruling that the legislators lacked standing to sue under Civil Rule 12(b)(1). The court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a concrete injury necessary for standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the legislators did not have standing because they did not represent the entire legislature or a controlling bloc within it. The court distinguished this case from precedents where entire legislatures or controlling blocs had standing to sue. The court emphasized that individual legislators generally lack standing to assert institutional injuries of the legislature. The court also noted that the legislators had not shown that their votes were nullified by the amendments, as required for standing under relevant Supreme Court precedents.The Sixth Circuit concluded that the legislators' claims did not meet the requirements for standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, as they did not suffer a concrete and particularized injury. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. View "Lindsey v. Whitmer" on Justia Law

Angela Reading, a mother and former school board member, alleged that federal and local government officials violated her First Amendment rights by censoring and retaliating against her after she posted comments on Facebook. The controversy began when Reading criticized a poster at her child's elementary school that featured various sexual identities. Her post drew significant attention and backlash from military personnel at a nearby base, leading to a series of communications and actions by local and federal officials, including heightened security at a school board meeting and referrals to counter-terrorism authorities.Reading sought a preliminary injunction to prevent further interference with her free speech rights. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied her motion, concluding that she failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and focused on whether Reading had standing to seek a preliminary injunction. The court found that the bulk of the alleged unlawful conduct occurred during a brief period and had significantly subsided by the time Reading filed her lawsuit. The court determined that Reading did not show a substantial risk of future harm or a likelihood of future injury traceable to the defendants. Consequently, the court held that Reading lacked standing to seek a preliminary injunction and affirmed the District Court's order denying her motion. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Reading v. North Hanover Township" on Justia Law

The plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendant, alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) after the defendant reported to the police that the plaintiff had sexually and physically assaulted her. This report led to the plaintiff being criminally charged, arrested, and held without bail for almost two years before being acquitted. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's report was false and made with malicious intent to harm him.The Superior Court, Windsor Unit, Civil Division, granted the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the defendant's statements to the police were absolutely privileged as communications preliminary to a judicial proceeding. The court also granted the defendant's special motion to strike under Vermont's anti-SLAPP statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041, and awarded attorney’s fees to the defendant. The court reasoned that the defendant's statements were protected under the anti-SLAPP statute as an exercise of her right to petition the government.The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's grant of judgment on the pleadings, agreeing that the defendant's statements to the police were absolutely privileged. The Court held that public policy supports extending absolute privilege to such statements to encourage free and full disclosure to law enforcement without fear of civil liability. The Court also affirmed the trial court's application of the anti-SLAPP statute, concluding that the defendant's statements were made in connection with a public issue and were an exercise of her constitutional rights. However, the Supreme Court remanded the case for the trial court to consider the plaintiff's constitutional challenges to the anti-SLAPP statute, which the trial court had not adequately addressed. View "Talandar v. Manchester-Murphy" on Justia Law

In this case, two organizations and four individuals brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Phoenix and several police officers, alleging violations of their constitutional rights during a protest outside a rally held by then-President Trump at the Phoenix Convention Center on August 22, 2017. The plaintiffs claimed that the police used excessive force and violated their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by dispersing the protesters with tear gas, chemical irritants, and flash-bang grenades.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona certified two classes and granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims except for the individual Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims asserted by three plaintiffs against certain officers. The court found that there was no "seizure" of the class members under the Fourth Amendment and evaluated the excessive-force claims under the Fourteenth Amendment's "shocks-the-conscience" test. The court also granted summary judgment to the defendants on the First Amendment claims, finding no evidence of retaliatory intent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's summary judgment for the defendants on the class claims. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the use of airborne and auditory irritants did not constitute a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment and that the Fourteenth Amendment's "purpose to harm" standard applied. The court found no evidence of an improper purpose to harm by the officers.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment to the individual defendants on the excessive-force claims asserted by the three plaintiffs, holding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the officers acted reasonably under the circumstances or did not violate clearly established law. The court also affirmed the district court's summary judgment for the individual defendants on the First Amendment claims, finding that the officers had objectively reasonable grounds to disperse the crowd due to a clear and present danger.Finally, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment for Police Chief Williams and the City of Phoenix, concluding that there was no evidence that Williams caused or ratified the use of excessive force or that the City was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. View "PUENTE V. CITY OF PHOENIX" on Justia Law

In 2022, the Kentucky General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 1 (S.B. 1), which restructured the relationship between the Jefferson County Board of Education and its superintendent. The bill required the Board to delegate day-to-day operations to the superintendent, limited the Board's meeting frequency, and granted the superintendent additional administrative powers. The Jefferson County Board of Education filed a declaratory judgment action, claiming S.B. 1 violated Sections 59 and 60 of the Kentucky Constitution, which prohibit local or special legislation.The Jefferson Circuit Court ruled in favor of the Board, declaring S.B. 1 unconstitutional. The court found that the bill effectively applied only to Jefferson County, thus constituting impermissible local legislation. The court also ruled, sua sponte, that S.B. 1 violated the equal protection rights of Jefferson County residents. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on the grounds of Section 59 but did not address the equal protection ruling.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that S.B. 1 did not violate Sections 59 and 60 of the Kentucky Constitution. The Court reasoned that the bill's language created an open classification applicable to any county with a consolidated local government, not just Jefferson County. The Court also found that the Board had standing to challenge the bill and that the superintendent was not a necessary party to the action. The Court declined to address the equal protection issue, as it was not properly raised or developed in the lower courts. View "COLEMAN V. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION" on Justia Law

Donna Miller Bruenger, the ex-wife of the late Coleman Miller, filed a petition for declaratory judgment against Courtenay Ann Miller, Coleman’s daughter, seeking entitlement to Coleman’s Federal Employee’s Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) benefits. Coleman had failed to designate a beneficiary for his FEGLI benefits before his death, and MetLife distributed the benefits to Courtenay. Bruenger argued that Coleman’s legal obligation under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to assign her the benefits should prevail.The Jefferson Circuit Court ruled against Bruenger, concluding that federal law precluded her claim because Coleman’s employer did not receive the QDRO before his death. Bruenger’s subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals as untimely, and the court also imposed sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal. Bruenger then sought relief under CR 60.02, which the trial court granted, allowing her to refile the appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the refiled appeal as frivolous and awarded attorney’s fees to Courtenay.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and determined that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to consider the merits of the CR 60.02 relief. The Supreme Court held that RAP 11(B) authorizes the award of attorney’s fees as a sanction for frivolous appeals but found that the imposition of sanctions in this case violated due process because Bruenger was not given notice or an opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction but reversed the sanctions imposed by the Court of Appeals. View "BRUENGER V. MILLER" on Justia Law

Maverick Gaming LLC, a casino gaming company, filed a lawsuit challenging the State of Washington's tribal-state compacts that allow sports betting on tribal land. Maverick argued that these compacts violate the Indian Regulatory Gaming Act (IGRA), the Equal Protection Clause, and the Tenth Amendment. Maverick sought to invalidate the gaming compacts and amendments that permit sports betting on tribal lands, which would allow them to offer similar gaming activities at their cardrooms.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed Maverick's lawsuit. The court found that the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe, which intervened for the limited purpose of filing a motion to dismiss, was a required party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a). The court determined that the Tribe had a legally protected interest in the lawsuit that could be impaired or impeded in its absence. The court also concluded that the Tribe could not be feasibly joined in the litigation due to its sovereign immunity. Consequently, the court ruled that the litigation could not proceed in equity and good conscience without the Tribe and dismissed the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the Tribe was a required party with a substantial interest in the legality of its gaming compact and sports betting amendment. The court also found that the federal government could not adequately represent the Tribe's interests, as their interests diverged in meaningful ways. The court held that the Tribe's sovereign immunity prevented its joinder, and the litigation could not proceed without the Tribe. The court rejected Maverick's argument that the public rights exception should apply, as the suit threatened the Tribe's legal entitlements and sovereignty. View "Maverick Gaming LLC V. United States" on Justia Law

Spring Siders, a Christian evangelist, sought to share her religious message outside a public amphitheater in Brandon, Mississippi. The City of Brandon had enacted an ordinance restricting protests and demonstrations near the amphitheater during events. Siders challenged the constitutionality of this ordinance after being directed by police to a designated protest area, which she found unsuitable for her activities. She argued that the ordinance infringed on her First Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied Siders' request for a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of the ordinance. The court found that Siders had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim, relying on a similar case, Herridge v. Montgomery County, which upheld restrictions on street preaching near a concert venue for public safety reasons.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the ordinance was content-neutral and subject to intermediate scrutiny. It found that the ordinance was narrowly tailored to serve the significant government interest of public safety and traffic control during events at the amphitheater. The court also determined that the ordinance left open ample alternative channels for communication, as Siders could still engage in her activities in the designated protest area and other locations outside the restricted area.The Fifth Circuit concluded that Siders had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of her First Amendment claim. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction. View "Siders v. City of Brandon" on Justia Law