Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In 2010, four individuals sued the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) under the Anti-Terrorism Act, resulting in a default judgment of $318 million against FARC. Unable to collect from FARC, the plaintiffs sought to garnish assets of Samark José López Bello and his companies, alleging they were agents or instrumentalities of FARC. The district court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the Eleventh Circuit reversed, mandating a jury trial to determine the agency status of López and his companies.On remand, the district court scheduled a jury trial and allowed discovery. The plaintiffs sought to depose López and requested documents. López and his companies filed motions for protective orders to avoid discovery, which the district court denied, warning of sanctions for non-compliance. López failed to appear for his deposition and did not comply with document requests. Consequently, the district court entered default judgments against López and his companies, citing willful disobedience and the inability to compel compliance due to López's fugitive status.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's entry of default judgments, finding no abuse of discretion. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court correctly interpreted its scheduling order to allow discovery and found that López's failure to comply with discovery orders was willful. The court also determined that less severe sanctions would not ensure compliance, given López's fugitive status. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction due to an appeal of the protective order denials, as those orders were not final or immediately appealable. View "Stansell v. Lopez Bello" on Justia Law

The case involves the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the North Carolina Republican Party (NCGOP) filing two state law claims against the North Carolina State Board of Elections (State Board) and its members. The claims, one statutory and one constitutional, allege that the State Board failed to comply with the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), which mandates certain voter registration and maintenance procedures. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) intervened as a defendant. The plaintiffs argue that the State Board's noncompliance with HAVA led to improper voter registrations, potentially affecting 225,000 voters.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina initially reviewed the case. The district court found it had original jurisdiction over the state statutory claim but not the state constitutional claim. It dismissed the statutory claim, ruling that the relevant statutory provision did not provide a private right of action. Consequently, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state constitutional claim and remanded it to state court, also holding that Section 1443 did not provide a valid basis for removal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court's remand order was improper. It found that the district court possessed original jurisdiction over the state constitutional claim under Section 1331 because the claim contained an embedded federal question. The court also determined that removal was permissible under Section 1441. Additionally, the court held that the defendants validly removed the constitutional claim pursuant to Section 1443(2), which allows for removal in cases involving the refusal to perform an act on the grounds that it would be inconsistent with laws providing for equal rights. The court reversed the district court’s remand order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "RNC v. North Carolina State Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The United States government initiated a civil forfeiture action to recover funds from Younes Nasri, a Canadian citizen residing in Dubai, alleging that the funds were ill-gotten gains from criminal activities. Nasri, who was indicted on racketeering and drug conspiracy charges, claimed innocent ownership of the assets held in foreign bank accounts. He argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the assets because neither he nor the assets had any ties to the United States.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted the government's motion to strike Nasri's claim under the fugitive disentitlement statute, finding that it had in rem jurisdiction over the assets. The court also determined that the fugitive disentitlement statute did not violate due process and that Nasri qualified as a fugitive under the statute. Nasri appealed the decision, challenging the court's jurisdiction and the application of the fugitive disentitlement statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that due process requires a court to have control or constructive control over the property in a forfeiture action to establish in rem jurisdiction. The court found that the district court's exercise of in rem jurisdiction over the foreign assets, without sufficient control or possession, violated due process principles. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for the lower court to assess whether it had control or constructive control over the assets to satisfy due process requirements when asserting in rem jurisdiction. View "USA V. NASRI" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, consisting of individuals and advocacy organizations, challenged a New Mexico Department of Health (NM DOH) Public Health Order (PHO) that restricted firearm carry in public parks and playgrounds in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. They argued that the PHO violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico initially issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against parts of the first PHO. After the NM DOH amended the PHO, the plaintiffs sought preliminary injunctions against the amended order. The district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the plaintiffs' appeal regarding the public parks restriction was moot because a separate case, Springer v. Grisham, had already granted a preliminary injunction against the same restriction. The court determined that any relief granted would not have a real-world effect since the plaintiffs had already received the relief they sought.Regarding the playgrounds restriction, the court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court noted that existing city and county regulations independently restricted firearm carry in playgrounds, and the plaintiffs did not demonstrate how enjoining the PHO would allow them to lawfully carry firearms in those areas. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to show that a favorable decision would redress their alleged injuries.The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs' claims were either moot or lacked standing. View "We the Patriots v. Grisham" on Justia Law

Orthodox Jewish families and schools challenged California's requirement that private schools be nonsectarian to provide special education under the IDEA. The families argued this requirement violated their Free Exercise and Equal Protection rights by preventing them from advocating for religious school placements for their children with disabilities. The schools claimed the requirement barred them from certification solely due to their religious affiliation.The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the case, ruling the schools and one family lacked standing and denying the families' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found the schools did not demonstrate they were "able and ready" to apply for certification and that the nonsectarian requirement did not affect the educational placement of one family's child. However, it held that another family had standing to challenge the requirement.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the schools' and one family's claims for lack of standing but reversed the dismissal of the other families' claims. The court held that the nonsectarian requirement burdened the families' free exercise rights by preventing them from advocating for religious school placements. It found the requirement was not neutral to religion and applied strict scrutiny, concluding the State failed to show the requirement was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. The court vacated the denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded for further consideration of the injunction factors. View "LOFFMAN V. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION" on Justia Law

Michael Benson was civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program in 1993. In 2020, he petitioned for a reduction in custody, which the Special Review Board recommended denying. Benson then sought a rehearing and reconsideration from the Commitment Appeal Panel (CAP). He filed a motion to cross-examine witnesses and participate in his defense, expressing a preference to proceed pro se. The CAP allowed limited cross-examination by Benson but required his appointed counsel to be present and conduct initial questioning. Benson refused to participate under these conditions, leading the CAP to dismiss his petition.Benson appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, arguing that the right to counsel under Minnesota Statutes section 253D.20 is waivable. The court of appeals affirmed the CAP's decision, holding that the right to counsel in section 253D.20 is not waivable, based on its precedent. The court also noted that Benson forfeited his constitutional arguments by not raising them at the CAP hearing.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether a civilly committed person can waive the right to counsel under section 253D.20. The court concluded that the right to counsel is waivable, provided the waiver is knowing and intelligent. The court found the statutory language ambiguous but interpreted it in light of legislative intent, common law, and constitutional considerations. The court reversed the court of appeals' decision and remanded the case to the CAP to determine if Benson's waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent. If so, the CAP must allow him to represent himself. View "In re Matter of the Civil Commitment of Benson" on Justia Law

A man was unable to purchase a firearm because a background check revealed he was subject to a long-term domestic violence protective order (DVPO). He sued the State, claiming he was no longer subject to a protective order as defined by federal statute and sought a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment to have the Department of Public Safety (DPS) notify a national database that he was no longer subject to a protective order under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). He filed a motion for summary judgment, which the State opposed, filing a cross-motion for summary judgment. The superior court granted the State’s cross-motion, and the man appealed.The superior court found that the DVPO had not expired and remained a qualifying order under Section 922(g)(8). It also concluded that the man’s constitutional claims were not ripe because he had not initiated modification or dissolution of the order. The court entered a final judgment in favor of the State.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court’s decision. The court held that the DVPO remained in effect and was a qualifying order under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). The court found that the legislative history supported the interpretation that DVPOs issued under AS 18.66.100(c)(1) are effective until further order of the court. The court also concluded that the man’s remaining claims were not ripe for adjudication because he had not attempted to dissolve or modify the DVPO. View "Eng v. State" on Justia Law

The case involves an automobile accident that occurred on June 2, 2018, where Theresa Fisher's vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Steven Harter, Jr., causing a chain reaction. Steven Harter, Sr., was also named as a defendant because his son was a minor at the time. The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment challenging the constitutionality of La. R.S. 13:4163, which allows legislators and legislative employees to obtain continuances or extensions of court dates.The 1st Judicial District Court upheld the constitutionality of La. R.S. 13:4163, and the appellate court declined the plaintiff’s application for supervisory review. The district court had previously granted a partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding Steven Harter, Jr. negligent and his father vicariously liable. The court also dismissed the defendants' affirmative defenses of comparative and third-party fault. However, the district court denied the plaintiff's motion for declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of La. R.S. 13:4163, stating that the statute did not violate the separation of powers or any constitutional rights.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The court held that La. R.S. 13:4163 is unconstitutional on its face because it usurps the judiciary's power to grant or deny continuances, violating the separation of powers doctrine. The court emphasized that the statute mandates courts to grant continuances ex parte, without a hearing, which undermines the courts' inherent authority to manage their dockets and ensure the fair administration of justice. The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to conduct a contradictory hearing for all contested motions for continuance. View "FISHER VS. HARTER" on Justia Law

A group of inmates sentenced to death filed a declaratory judgment action in the Franklin Circuit Court, challenging the validity of the Kentucky Department of Corrections' (DOC) execution regulations. In 2010, the court issued a temporary injunction preventing the execution of an inmate under the then-current lethal injection protocols. The Commonwealth's attempt to dissolve this injunction was denied, and the court's decision effectively halted all executions until a final judgment was rendered.The DOC revised its lethal injection regulations in March 2024, prompting the Commonwealth to request the lifting of the 2010 injunction. The Franklin Circuit Court reserved ruling on this motion, noting that the original protocols were no longer in effect and questioning whether the injunction still applied. The court highlighted that no current death warrants were active and declined to issue an advisory opinion on the amended regulations' constitutionality.The Commonwealth sought interlocutory relief from the Court of Appeals under RAP 20(B), arguing that the circuit court's reservation of ruling effectively modified the injunction. The Court of Appeals recommended transferring the matter to the Kentucky Supreme Court. Both parties supported this transfer, and the Supreme Court accepted the case.The Kentucky Supreme Court dismissed the action without prejudice, ruling that RAP 20(B) does not allow for interlocutory relief from an order that maintains an injunction. The court noted that the circuit court's decision to reserve ruling did not constitute a new or modified injunction and maintained the status quo. The Commonwealth had other potential remedies, such as requesting a definitive ruling or filing a petition for a writ of mandamus, but did not pursue these options. View "DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS V. BAZE" on Justia Law

In November 2023, X Corp. filed a lawsuit against Media Matters, Inc., Eric Hananoki, and Angelo Carusone, alleging interference with X Corp.'s contracts, business disparagement, and interference with prospective economic advantage. X Corp. claimed that Media Matters manipulated images to portray X Corp. as a platform dominated by neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism, which alienated advertisers, publishers, and users. During discovery, X Corp. requested Media Matters to produce documents identifying its donors and communications with them. Media Matters resisted, citing First Amendment concerns.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas initially ordered Media Matters to log documents responsive to X Corp.'s requests as privileged. However, Media Matters did not comply, arguing that the requests overlapped with other discovery requests. The district court then granted X Corp.'s motion to compel production, ruling that Media Matters had waived any First Amendment privilege by not searching for or logging the documents. Media Matters appealed the order and sought a stay pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that it had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, as the discovery order involved important First Amendment issues that were separate from the merits of the case and would be effectively unreviewable on appeal. The court determined that Media Matters was likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal because the discovery requests were not proportional to the needs of the case and posed a significant burden on Media Matters and its donors. Consequently, the court granted Media Matters's motion for a stay pending appeal, staying the district court's order compelling production. View "X Corp v. Media Matters" on Justia Law