Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Mark and Jane Thompson, residents of Aiken County and the City of Aiken, paid road maintenance fees levied by both the county and city for several years. After the City of Aiken rescinded its fee in 2021 and agreed to reimburse fees paid after that date, the Thompsons filed suit against various city and county officials and entities. They sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinances imposing the fees were invalid, reimbursement of unlawfully collected fees, damages under section 8-21-30 of the South Carolina Code, and relief for alleged violations of their constitutional rights.The case was first heard in the Circuit Court for Aiken County. The Thompsons voluntarily dismissed some claims and parties before and during the hearing. The trial court ultimately dismissed the remaining claims, finding that the South Carolina Revenue Procedures Act (RPA) deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction, that section 12-60-80(C) barred class actions against political subdivisions, that section 8-21-30 did not apply to the road maintenance fees or the actions of the county treasurer, and that sovereign immunity barred the unjust enrichment claim. The constitutional claim was dismissed by stipulation. The Thompsons appealed, and the Supreme Court of South Carolina certified the appeal before the Court of Appeals could rule.The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that the road maintenance fees at issue were not “taxes” under the RPA, so the RPA did not deprive the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over the individual or class claims. The catchall provision of section 12-60-80(C) does not bar class actions against political subdivisions unless the claim concerns value-based property taxes. The court affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment, section 8-21-30, and constitutional claims, but reversed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment claim and remanded for further proceedings on that claim, both individually and as a class. View "Thompson v. Killian" on Justia Law

The plaintiff resided at an apartment complex with his son, who was arrested for aggravated armed robbery by the local police department. After the arrest, the police informed the apartment management, which then evicted both the plaintiff and his son based on a lease provision prohibiting criminal conduct. The plaintiff sought information about his son’s arrest from the city and police department under the Texas Public Information Act, but his request was denied after the city consulted the Texas Attorney General and invoked a law-enforcement exception.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the plaintiff filed suit against the city, the police department, the apartment complex, a debt collection agency, and the Texas Attorney General, alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Texas law. All defendants either appeared, filed answers, or moved to dismiss. The plaintiff moved for default judgment against each defendant, but the district court denied those motions and granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. On appeal, the plaintiff only challenged the denial of default judgment, as he did not brief arguments regarding the dismissals and thus forfeited them.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed only the denial of default judgment for abuse of discretion. The court held that default judgment was not warranted because the city, police department, and debt collector had all appeared or answered, and the Attorney General had not been properly served. The court also found that arguments regarding attorney conflict and judicial bias were either forfeited or unsupported. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of default judgment. View "Clark v. City of Pasadena" on Justia Law

Late one night in Santa Fe, New Mexico, Jason Roybal led police officers on a low-speed chase in a stolen car. After stopping, Roybal leaned out of his vehicle and fired a BB gun at the officers. The officers responded by firing their guns. Roybal then exited his car, dropped the BB gun, and fled on foot toward a civilian-occupied vehicle. The officers shot and killed Roybal as he was running away. The personal representative of Roybal’s estate filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, specifically claiming that Roybal was unarmed and fleeing when he was shot.The case was initially filed in New Mexico state court, then removed to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. The officers moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting qualified immunity and arguing that the complaint omitted key facts, such as Roybal firing a BB gun and running toward an occupied car. They also asked the district court to consider dash- and body-camera footage. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that it could not consider the videos at this stage and that the complaint plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment violation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. The Tenth Circuit held that the district court properly refused to consider the video evidence at the motion-to-dismiss stage and that the complaint plausibly alleged a violation of Roybal’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. The court found that, accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, the officers’ conduct was not justified by the circumstances described, and the right at issue was clearly established by precedent. View "Fuqua v. Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

Several former students and their parents challenged a school district’s policy restricting the length of male students’ hair, alleging that the policy constituted race and sex discrimination and violated constitutional and statutory rights. The school district amended its hair policy during the 2019–2020 school year, removing language that previously allowed certain hairstyles, such as cornrows or locs, if they complied with other requirements. The plaintiffs argued that the enforcement of this policy infringed upon their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, Title VI, Title IX, and Texas law.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. During discovery, the plaintiffs sought to depose the superintendent and a former board president. The school district moved for a protective order, asserting legislative privilege to prevent inquiries into the subjective motivations of board members regarding the hair policy. The district court partially denied the motion, establishing a procedure where deponents could assert the privilege but would still be required to answer, with disputed portions of testimony marked confidential for later review. The district court declined to rule on the privilege’s applicability until specific questions were asked during depositions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the district court erred in its handling of the legislative privilege and the protective order. The Fifth Circuit held that none of the appellants—including the school district, the board of trustees, and the individual former officials—had standing to appeal the district court’s order because the privilege holders had not personally invoked the privilege or participated adequately in the proceedings. As a result, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and also dismissed the pending motion to stay as moot. View "Arnold v. Barbers Hill Independent School District" on Justia Law

Mary Timmins worked as general counsel and litigation counsel for the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District in Colorado. During her employment, she discovered that certain members of the District’s Board were engaging in conduct she believed to be corrupt and potentially unlawful, including violating open meetings laws, improperly communicating with a state-employed attorney, and destroying public records relevant to ongoing litigation. After repeatedly warning the Board internally without effect, Timmins disclosed her concerns to reporters and private citizens, alleging that the Board members were acting against the interests of the District and its residents. She was subsequently terminated from her position.Timmins filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the District and three Board members, asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation. The district court dismissed her claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), concluding that her speech was not protected by the First Amendment because it was made pursuant to her official duties as a public employee. The court reasoned that her statements to the press and private citizens were essentially identical to those made in her official capacity and stemmed from her work responsibilities.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The Tenth Circuit held that Timmins’s speech to reporters and private citizens was not made pursuant to her official duties, as her job did not ordinarily require her to make such disclosures outside the chain of command. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of Timmins’s amended complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings, declining to address alternative grounds for affirmance at this stage. View "Timmins v. Plotkin" on Justia Law

A security services company and its sole shareholder, who is also its president and CEO, provided security services to two Iowa cities under separate contracts. After the shareholder published a letter criticizing media coverage of law enforcement responses to protests, a local newspaper published articles highlighting his critical comments about protestors and the Black Lives Matter movement. Subsequently, a city council member expressed concerns about the shareholder’s views, and the city council voted unanimously to terminate the company’s contract. The council member also pressured officials in the other city to end their contract with the company. Facing negative publicity, the company voluntarily terminated its second contract to avoid harm to a pending business transaction.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against the city, the council member, and other council members, alleging First Amendment retaliation, tortious interference with business contracts, and defamation. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6). It found that the shareholder lacked standing to assert a First Amendment retaliation claim for injuries to the corporation, and that the corporation failed to state a retaliation claim because only the shareholder engaged in protected speech. The court dismissed the tortious interference claim for lack of sufficient factual allegations and because the contract was terminated voluntarily. The defamation claim was dismissed for failure to identify any actionable statements by the defendants.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the shareholder’s First Amendment retaliation and defamation claims, but directed that these dismissals be without prejudice. The court reversed the dismissal of the corporation’s First Amendment retaliation and tortious interference claims, finding that the complaint alleged sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss, and remanded those claims for further proceedings. View "Conley v. City of West Des Moines" on Justia Law

A candidate for Congress, who holds both a medical degree and a law degree but is not licensed to practice medicine, referred to himself as “Dr. Gonzalez” and a “physician” during his campaign. The Texas Medical Board (TMB) received a complaint alleging that these statements constituted the unlicensed practice of medicine and improper use of professional titles. After an investigation and hearing, TMB determined that the candidate had violated the Medical Practice Act and the Healing Art Identification Act, issuing a cease-and-desist order prohibiting him from using the titles “doctor,” “physician,” or “Dr.” without clarifying his lack of a medical license. The candidate challenged the order, arguing both statutory and constitutional grounds, including that the statutes violated his free speech rights.The Travis County District Court dismissed all of the candidate’s claims for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas affirmed the dismissal of most claims, holding that the redundant-remedies doctrine barred his ultra vires and as-applied constitutional claims because he could have sought relief through the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). However, the appellate court remanded his facial constitutional challenge to the district court for further proceedings.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the redundant-remedies doctrine did not bar the candidate’s ultra vires and as-applied constitutional claims, because the relief he sought—declaratory and injunctive relief against future enforcement—went beyond what the APA could provide. The court affirmed the dismissal of his substantial-evidence claim for lack of jurisdiction, as there was no statutory basis for judicial review outside the APA. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the facial constitutional, as-applied constitutional, and ultra vires claims. View "GONZALEZ v. TEXAS MEDICAL BOARD" on Justia Law

In 2024, Minnesota enacted a law that revised the criteria for classifying independent contractors in the construction industry, expanding a previous nine-part test to a fourteen-part test. Several construction industry organizations and a general contractor challenged the law, arguing that certain provisions were unconstitutionally vague and that the civil penalties authorized by the statute violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The plaintiffs specifically objected to requirements regarding written contracts, invoicing, expense responsibility, and profit or loss realization, as well as the potential for significant civil penalties for noncompliance.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the law. The court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims. The plaintiffs then appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the law, as they alleged specific conduct targeted by the statute and faced a credible threat of enforcement. However, the court concluded that the challenged statutory terms were sufficiently clear for people of ordinary intelligence and did not encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The court also determined that the plaintiffs’ excessive fines claim was premature, as no penalties had yet been imposed and Minnesota law requires a proportionality analysis before penalties are assessed. Because the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, the court found no basis for a preliminary injunction and affirmed the lower court’s judgment. View "MN Chapter of Assoc. Builders v. Blissenbach" on Justia Law

Iowa enacted a law making it a state crime for certain noncitizens who had previously been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed from the United States to enter or be found in Iowa. The law also required state judges to order such individuals to return to the country from which they entered and prohibited state courts from pausing prosecutions based on pending or possible federal immigration status determinations. Two noncitizens residing in Iowa, both of whom had previously been subject to federal removal orders but later lawfully reentered the United States, along with a membership-based immigrant advocacy organization, challenged the law, arguing it was preempted by federal immigration law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa found that the plaintiffs had standing and granted a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Iowa law was preempted by federal law under both conflict and field preemption doctrines. The district court also found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if the law went into effect and that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion, reviewing legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs had standing and were likely to succeed on the merits because every application of the Iowa law would conflict with federal immigration law by interfering with the discretion Congress grants to federal officials. The court also found that the other factors for a preliminary injunction were met. The Eighth Circuit remanded for the district court to determine the appropriate scope of the injunction in light of recent Supreme Court guidance. View "IA Migrant Movement for Justice v. Bird" on Justia Law

In this case, the owners of a residential property in Fayetteville, Arkansas, sought to rent their home as a short-term rental when not in residence. The City of Fayetteville had enacted an ordinance regulating short-term rentals, requiring a license for all such properties and a conditional-use permit for certain types in residential zones. The ordinance also imposed a cap on the number of these rentals. After applying for a conditional-use permit, the property owners’ application was denied by the Fayetteville Planning Commission, which found the proposed rental incompatible with the neighborhood due to the number of similar rentals nearby.Following the denial, the property owners attempted to appeal to the Fayetteville City Council, but their appeal was not sponsored by the required number of council members. They then filed an administrative appeal in the Washington County Circuit Court, along with claims for declaratory and constitutional relief. They also sought a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the ordinance while their case was pending. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing the administrative appeal was untimely. The circuit court denied the preliminary injunction and dismissed the administrative appeal for lack of jurisdiction, but left the constitutional claims pending.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed only the denial of the preliminary injunction, as the dismissal of the administrative appeal was not properly before it due to the absence of a final, appealable order. The court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction, finding no irreparable harm and no likelihood of success on the merits at this stage. The denial of the preliminary injunction was affirmed, and the appeal of the administrative dismissal was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. View "HAUSE v. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS; THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION" on Justia Law