Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A couple, the Marons, alleged that Florida's Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They claimed that the Act allowed the state to take their unclaimed property without compensating them for the earnings accrued while the property was in the state's custody. The Act requires holders of unclaimed property to deliver it to the state's Department of Financial Services, which then uses the property for public purposes, including investing it. The Marons argued that they were entitled to these earnings.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissed the Marons' suit. The court reasoned that the state could constitutionally escheat the property altogether, so it could also keep the property in its custody without compensating for the earnings. The court also addressed jurisdictional issues, concluding that the Marons had standing and that their claim was not fully barred by sovereign immunity, but ultimately found that the Marons failed to state a claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the district court had jurisdiction over the Marons' takings claim, as the Marons had standing, the claim was ripe, and it was not barred by sovereign immunity. However, the appellate court disagreed with the district court's analysis on the merits. The appellate court held that the Act did not transfer title of the unclaimed property to the state, but merely placed it in the state's custody. The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the Marons' property was directly appropriated by the state and whether the Act provided just compensation. View "Maron v. Chief Financial Officer of Florida" on Justia Law

Yelp, a company that publishes consumer reviews, introduced a notification on its business pages for crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in 2022, stating that these centers typically offer limited medical services. After objections from several state Attorneys General, including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Yelp replaced the notice with one stating that CPCs do not offer abortions or abortion referrals. Despite this change, Paxton initiated an investigation and sent Yelp a notice of intent to file suit, alleging that the original notice violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices – Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). Yelp then filed a lawsuit in federal court, claiming First Amendment retaliation, and sought to enjoin Paxton from further action. The next day, Paxton filed a state court action against Yelp.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Yelp’s federal case based on the Younger abstention doctrine, which prevents federal courts from interfering with ongoing state judicial proceedings. The district court found that the requirements for Younger abstention were met and that the bad faith exception did not apply.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that Younger’s bad faith exception did not apply because Yelp had not sufficiently established that the Texas civil enforcement action was brought without a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid judgment or was facially meritless. The court also found that Yelp failed to show that Paxton’s enforcement action was motivated by a desire to harass or retaliate against Yelp for its support of abortion rights. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying Yelp’s request for discovery and an evidentiary hearing. View "YELP INC. V. PAXTON" on Justia Law

Speech First, Incorporated, challenged Texas State University's harassment policy, arguing it violated the First Amendment. The policy prohibited "unwelcome verbal" or "written conduct" without defining these terms, potentially stifling speech on sensitive topics like abortion, immigration, and gender identity. Speech First claimed the policy targeted politically disfavored speech, causing students to self-censor.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas acknowledged the policy's First Amendment issues but refused to issue a preliminary injunction. Instead, it pressured the University to amend the policy. The University reluctantly complied, and the district court dismissed Speech First's motion as moot, believing the policy change resolved the issue.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It disagreed with the lower court's ruling that the policy change rendered the request for a preliminary injunction moot. The appellate court noted that voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not moot a case unless it is absolutely clear the behavior will not recur. The court found that Texas State's policy change, made under judicial pressure, did not meet this stringent standard. The University continued to defend the original policy, and there was no controlling statement ensuring the policy would not revert.The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case for further consideration of the motion for preliminary injunctive relief. View "Speech First v. McCall" on Justia Law

John Doe, a convicted sex offender, challenged the enforcement of Tennessee's sex-offender statutes against him, arguing that the requirements imposed by these statutes constituted retroactive punishment in violation of the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause. Tennessee's sex-offender statutes require offenders to register with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, update their personal information quarterly, limit where they can live and work, and allow the state to publish information about registrants. Doe committed his offenses before the passage of the 2004 statutes and sought to prevent Tennessee officials from enforcing these laws against him.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee issued a preliminary injunction barring Tennessee officials from enforcing any of the state’s sex-offender statutes against Doe. This decision was influenced by a related case, Does #1–9 v. Lee, where the district court had issued a similar injunction for nine other convicted sex offenders. After the Sixth Circuit reviewed Does #1–9, it held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the governor and directed the trial court to modify its injunction against the director, stating that the district court had misinterpreted precedent and that only specific provisions of the sex-offender statutes could be enjoined.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court's refusal to dissolve or modify the preliminary injunction following the Does #1–9 decision. The Sixth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by not dissolving or modifying the injunction, as the Does #1–9 decision clarified that the injunction was overly broad. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s order administratively closing the case and remanded for proceedings consistent with the Does #1–9 opinion, instructing the district court to determine which specific provisions of Tennessee’s sex-offender statutes could be enjoined. View "Doe v. Lee" on Justia Law

The case involves the appellant, Gregory Smith, challenging the Municipality of Anchorage's decision to abate unauthorized campsites in Davis Park. The Anchorage Municipal Code (AMC) outlines procedures for campsite abatement, including posting a notice and allowing for an appeal to the superior court. In June 2022, the Municipality posted a notice in Davis Park, advising that the area was not legal for storage or shelter and that any personal property would be removed and disposed of as waste after ten days. Smith and five others appealed the abatement, arguing it violated due process and the Eighth Amendment.The superior court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Municipality that its jurisdiction was limited to reviewing the legal sufficiency of the posted notice, not the abatement decision itself. The court noted that the appellants did not challenge the notice's compliance with the Code, thus leaving no issues for the court to decide. The court also observed that the appellants' claims were not without merit and suggested that a civil suit could address their concerns.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and concluded that the superior court's jurisdiction was not limited to the notice's legal sufficiency. The court held that the superior court has jurisdiction to review the substantive decision to abate the campsite, including constitutional challenges. The court reversed the superior court's decision and remanded the case for further consideration of the constitutional issues raised by Smith. The court also directed the superior court to determine if the administrative record was sufficient for meaningful appellate review and to take necessary steps to ensure it has an adequate record. View "Smith v. Municipality of Anchorage" on Justia Law

Mohsen Mahdawi, a Lawful Permanent Resident and undergraduate student at Columbia University, was arrested during his naturalization interview in Vermont. He was detained and served with a Notice to Appear, indicating that the U.S. Secretary of State had determined he was removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Mahdawi filed a habeas petition, claiming his arrest and detention were in retaliation for his advocacy on the war in Gaza, violating his First and Fifth Amendment rights. The district court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing his removal from Vermont and later granted his release on bail, finding he was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.The United States District Court for the District of Vermont initially granted Mahdawi’s emergency motion for a TRO and later extended it. The court also granted his motion for release on bail pending the resolution of his habeas petition. The government sought an emergency stay of these orders, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Mahdawi’s habeas petition and the authority to order his release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and denied the government’s motion for a stay. The court found that the government was unlikely to succeed on its arguments that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Mahdawi’s habeas petition and the authority to order his release. The court also concluded that the government had not demonstrated irreparable injury and that the balance of equities tipped in favor of denying the stay. Consequently, the government’s motion for a stay and request for a writ of mandamus were both denied. View "Mahdawi v. Trump" on Justia Law

Two property owners in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) of College Station, Texas, challenged city ordinances regulating off-premise signage and driveway construction. They argued that these regulations, imposed without granting them the right to vote in city elections, violated the Texas Constitution's requirement for a "republican form of government." The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the ordinances were void and unenforceable.The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice, agreeing with the City that the form of local government is a political question for the legislature, not the courts. The plaintiffs appealed, but while the appeal was pending, the legislature amended the law to allow ETJ residents to unilaterally opt out of a city's ETJ. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth District of Texas affirmed the trial court's dismissal, not addressing the new statutory opt-out provision.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and determined that the legislative change provided a nonjudicial remedy that could moot the plaintiffs' constitutional claims. The court vacated the lower court judgments and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to abate the proceedings, allowing the plaintiffs a reasonable opportunity to complete the opt-out process. The court emphasized the importance of judicial restraint and constitutional avoidance, noting that the new law offered a means of relief that should be pursued before addressing broader constitutional questions. View "ELLIOTT v. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS" on Justia Law

In June 2020, the North Dakota Department of Health inspected ND Indoor RV Park, LLC and found several health, safety, and fire code violations. The Park was informed that its 2020 operating license would be revoked unless the violations were corrected. The Park did not address the violations, leading to the initiation of the license revocation process. The Park also requested a renewal of its license for 2021, which was denied due to the existing violations. The Park was allowed to operate until the hearing proceedings were final. The Park later withdrew its request for a hearing, and the Department of Health dismissed the renewal application and closed the case. Subsequently, the Park sold its property.The Park filed a complaint against the State of North Dakota, alleging regulatory taking, deprivation of substantive and procedural due process, inverse condemnation, unlawful interference with business relationships, systemic violation of due process, and estoppel. The State moved for judgment on the pleadings, claiming qualified immunity for individual defendants and lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the takings claims. The district court denied the State’s motion for summary judgment on the takings and due process claims but granted summary judgment on the unlawful interference claim. The remaining claims were dismissed by stipulation.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court granted a writ of supervision, directing the district court to dismiss counts II and III because the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also directed the dismissal of counts I and IV for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the Park failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court concluded that the Park could not prevail on its substantive and procedural due process claims and that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the takings claims. View "ND Indoor RV Park v. State" on Justia Law

Amazon.com Services LLC appealed the "constructive denial" of its motion for injunctive relief from two administrative proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The case involves Amazon's fulfillment center in Staten Island, New York, where the Amazon Labor Union (ALU) won an election to represent over 8,000 employees. Amazon filed objections alleging interference by ALU and the NLRB's Regional Office, leading to two NLRB cases: one concerning the election and another regarding Amazon's refusal to bargain with ALU.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas reviewed Amazon's request for temporary, preliminary, and permanent declaratory and injunctive relief to avoid harm from the alleged unconstitutional proceedings. Amazon argued that the structure of the NLRB proceedings violated the U.S. Constitution. The district court denied Amazon's request for a temporary restraining order, finding that Amazon had not established a substantial threat of irreparable harm. The court also granted but stayed the NLRB's motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of New York.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court found that Amazon did not act diligently in seeking expedited relief and failed to establish a legitimate basis for urgency. The court noted that Amazon did not repeatedly request swift review or a ruling by a specific date until the day before its deadline to respond to the NLRB's summary judgment motion. The court concluded that the district court did not effectively deny Amazon's motion for injunctive relief by failing to rule by September 27, 2024. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Amazon.com v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Broc Waltermeyer, an incarcerated federal inmate, alleged that he received inadequate medical treatment for his chronic knee pain while at the Federal Correctional Institute in Berlin, New Hampshire. He claimed that despite receiving various non-surgical treatments, including cortisone injections, pain medication, special shoes, knee braces, access to a low bunk, and a cane, he continued to experience pain. Waltermeyer argued that he should have been provided with knee replacement surgery, which was recommended to be deferred by an outside specialist until he was older.The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire dismissed Waltermeyer's complaint, holding that his claims failed because he had an alternative administrative remedy. The district court also denied his motion for a preliminary injunction, as he had been transferred to a different facility, making the defendants no longer responsible for his care. Waltermeyer then amended his complaint to seek only money damages, leading to the current appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that Waltermeyer's claims were meaningfully different from those in Carlson v. Green, where the Supreme Court recognized a Bivens-type Eighth Amendment claim against federal prison officials for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The court found that Waltermeyer received substantial treatment, albeit not the treatment he preferred, and that the medical procedures administered were in accordance with doctors' recommendations. The court concluded that the differences in the nature of the medical care provided and the absence of gross inadequacy or deliberate indifference made Waltermeyer's case distinct from Carlson, thus precluding the extension of a Bivens remedy. View "Waltermeyer v. Hazlewood" on Justia Law