Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Island Creek Associates, LLC was awarded a multiple award contract (MAC) known as SeaPort-NxG by the United States Navy, alongside two other companies, Don Selvy Enterprises, Inc. (DSE) and Precise Systems Inc., each receiving contracts on identical terms. In 2022, DSE and Precise formed a joint venture, Secise, under the Small Business Administration’s Mentor-Protégé Program (MPP). In 2024, the Navy issued a modification to the SeaPort-NxG MAC, allowing MPP joint ventures, as well as their mentor and protégé members, to each hold a separate MAC, creating an exception to the previous “One Prime Contract Per Company” rule. Following this modification and the issuance of a task order to Secise, Island Creek filed a five-count complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims, raising challenges to the contract modification, its implementation, and an alleged organizational conflict of interest involving a Navy contracting official and a Precise employee.After Island Creek’s complaint, the Navy took corrective action by rescinding the challenged portions of the contract modification, thereby reverting to the original rules. The Navy then moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the corrective action mooted four counts and that the remaining count was barred by statutory restrictions. The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint, holding that Island Creek lacked statutory standing as an “interested party” under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1), but did not rule on mootness or the application of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal, but on alternative grounds. The appellate court held that Counts I–III and V were moot due to the Navy’s corrective action, which eradicated the effects of the challenged modification. It further held that Count IV was barred under the FASA’s task order protest provision, 10 U.S.C. § 3406(f), and Island Creek lacked statutory standing to challenge Precise’s award. The judgment of the Court of Federal Claims was affirmed. View "ISLAND CREEK ASSOCIATES, LLC v. US " on Justia Law

A plaintiff who won a substantial lottery prize in Maine sought to protect his identity and that of his minor daughter from public disclosure. He entered into a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with the mother of his child, intending to keep details of his lottery win and finances private. After the plaintiff believed the NDA was breached, he sued for injunctive relief and damages in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. Throughout the proceedings, both parties were initially allowed to litigate under pseudonyms, and a local news organization intervened to advocate for public access. As trial approached, the plaintiff moved to close the courtroom to the public and to continue using pseudonyms, arguing that disclosure could jeopardize his family’s safety and his daughter’s privacy.The District Court for the District of Maine denied both requests. It issued a detailed opinion emphasizing the strong presumption of public access to judicial proceedings, citing common-law tradition and relevant federal rules. The court found that while the case involved sensitive financial and familial information, such concerns did not outweigh the public’s right to access. The court determined that the plaintiff’s wealth and desire for privacy did not constitute “unusually severe harm” justifying deviation from established principles. Additionally, the court noted that any potential harm to the minor child would be mitigated by identifying her only by initials, a standard protocol. The plaintiff timely appealed these rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case under the abuse of discretion standard. It affirmed the District Court’s decision, holding that neither the plaintiff’s wealth nor purported risks to his family met the exceptional circumstances required for trial closure or continued pseudonymity. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the lower court’s balancing of public access against privacy interests and awarded costs to the appellees. View "Doe v. Smith" on Justia Law

Three individuals deposited approximately $85,000 into a joint account with a bank. When one of the depositors became subject to a civil judgment in an unrelated matter, the judgment creditor garnished the account. The bank paid about $38,000 from the joint account to the creditor without seeking the depositors’ permission. The depositors sued the bank for breach of contract and fiduciary duty in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, which compelled arbitration under the account agreement. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the bank and awarded attorney fees. After the award, the bank sought confirmation of the arbitration award. The depositors’ attorney missed the 30-day deadline to seek judicial review due to a family emergency, specifically the unexpected death of his stepson.The depositors’ counsel filed a motion for nunc pro tunc relief in the Court of Common Pleas, requesting an extension to file for review. The court granted an additional 20 days. Counsel filed the belated appeal, and the court vacated the attorney fee award but otherwise affirmed the arbitration award. The bank appealed. The Pennsylvania Superior Court, after remanding for an unrelated issue, considered cross-appeals. The depositors argued due process violations during arbitration, while the bank contended the court lacked jurisdiction to modify the award after the statutory deadline and erred in granting nunc pro tunc relief.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether the “non-negligent happenstance” exception to statutory filing deadlines—established in Bass v. Commonwealth—remained viable and whether it applied to the attorney’s family emergency. The Court held that the statutory 30-day period in 42 Pa.C.S. § 7342(b) is mandatory and not subject to an equitable, non-negligent-happenstance exception absent express statutory language. The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s order, disapproving Bass as a basis for extending arbitration review deadlines without legislative authorization. View "Carr v. First Commonwealth Bank" on Justia Law

A Michigan marijuana grower entered into a contract with two subsidiaries of a larger company to supply all marijuana grown in its 2020 and 2021 harvests. At the time of contracting, the grower was licensed by Michigan to produce medical marijuana, while the buyers held both medical and recreational licenses. The contract required the marijuana to meet recreational testing standards, and the buyers paid a deposit. After the initial shipment, the buyers refused further deliveries due to a price drop, prompting the grower to sell the remaining harvests to other entities at lower prices.The grower sued the buyers for breach of contract in Michigan state court, seeking lost profits. The buyers removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, raised counterclaims, and asserted that the contract was unenforceable due to federal illegality. After cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court denied the buyers’ illegality defense and allowed the case to proceed to trial. A jury found the buyers liable and awarded substantial damages to the grower. The buyers renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law and requested a new trial, again arguing federal illegality.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial de novo. The Sixth Circuit held that federal courts cannot enforce contracts founded on agreements to commit conduct that is explicitly prohibited by federal law, such as distribution and possession of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act. Because the contract was not limited to medical use and encompassed conduct criminalized under federal law, the court found the contract unenforceable. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the buyers’ motion for judgment as a matter of law. View "Hello Farms Licensing MI, LLC v. GR Vending MI, LLC" on Justia Law

Twin brothers, both Black international students, were enrolled as doctoral candidates at the University of Mississippi’s Department of Pharmacy Administration. One brother, Bennard, disagreed with changes to his faculty mentorship arrangement, objected to mandatory in-person meetings, and declined to complete a required program assessment called the Abilities Transcript. After being repeatedly warned and given extensions, he was placed on provisional status for failing to complete the requirement, which also caused the loss of his graduate assistantship. Bennard and his brother each filed lawsuits against the University and several faculty members, alleging constitutional, statutory, and contract violations related to academic sanctions and alleged discriminatory treatment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi consolidated the brothers’ cases. It dismissed Bennard’s claims against the University on sovereign-immunity grounds, dismissed his remaining federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his individual-capacity state contract claims. Bennard appealed, while his brother’s appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed Bennard’s remaining claims. The court held that sovereign immunity barred claims against the University, claims against one defendant in her official capacity, and official-capacity state-law contract claims; those dismissals must be without prejudice. The court further found that Bennard failed to plausibly allege First or Fourteenth Amendment violations, and that the faculty defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on individual-capacity claims. The court affirmed the district court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining contract claims and upheld consolidation of the cases and dismissal of moot preliminary injunction motions. The judgment was affirmed as modified to clarify the proper form of dismissal for sovereign-immunity-barred claims. View "Eriakha v. University of MS" on Justia Law

In this case, a dispute arose over membership interests in Freedom Pass Partners, LLC, which owns undeveloped property near Big Sky, Montana. Carol Hudson, through her estate and beneficiaries Alan and Jeffrey Johnson, claimed that Hudson funded the purchase of the property based on assurances she would be a member of Freedom Pass. After Hudson’s death, her sons, acting as trustees and beneficiaries of her trust, filed suit asserting multiple claims including breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, and conversion, alleging Hudson’s investment entitled her to membership or ownership interests.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court reviewed the claims and granted summary judgment for Freedom Pass Partners, LLC. It found that the Johnsons lacked standing because the estate’s personal representative had not joined the litigation, and concluded that all claims were time-barred based on the statute of limitations. The court also denied Johnsons’ motions to amend the complaint, to compel discovery identifying a prospective property buyer, and for relief from judgment regarding the dissolution of a lis pendens notice.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the District Court’s decisions de novo for summary judgment and for abuse of discretion on the remaining motions. It held that genuine disputes of material fact existed about whether Hudson knew or should have known she was not a member of Freedom Pass, particularly given conflicting evidence and potential concealment or fiduciary duties. The Supreme Court also found the denial of leave to amend the complaint was an abuse of discretion because adding the estate’s personal representative could cure the standing defect. The denial of discovery and failure to consider mootness regarding the lis pendens were also found to be abuses of discretion. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s rulings and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hudson Revocable Trust v. Freedom Pass" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between a company and a port authority over responsibility for securing permits to dredge a ship channel in Lake Charles, Louisiana. The company had leased the channel to develop a grain terminal, but the lease did not specify which party was responsible for obtaining the dredging permit. After the terminal was built but could not be fully used without dredging, the company and the port disagreed over who bore this responsibility. The company sued in federal court, and, by consent of both parties, a U.S. Magistrate Judge presided over a bench trial and awarded the company nearly $125 million.After the trial and the entry of judgment, the port discovered that the magistrate judge and the company’s lead trial counsel had been close family friends for four decades—a relationship that was not fully disclosed. The only disclosure had been that the lead counsel’s daughter was the judge’s law clerk, who would be screened from the case. Upon learning about the undisclosed relationship, the port moved to vacate the magistrate judge referral. The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana held an evidentiary hearing and found that the port’s consent to the referral had not been knowing, as it had lacked crucial information about the judge’s conflict, and vacated the referral.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The Fifth Circuit held that a party’s consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction waives a fundamental constitutional right and, therefore, must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The court rejected the argument that constructive knowledge by the party’s counsel—rather than actual knowledge—could suffice to establish valid consent. Because the district court applied the correct standard and found no actual knowledge, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the vacation of the referral. View "I F G Port v. Lake Charles Harbor" on Justia Law

A former employee entered into a noncompete agreement with his employer, which barred him from engaging in similar business activities for 12 months within the company’s client base area after his employment ended in April 2024. Months later, the employer alleged that the former employee and his new business violated the agreement and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction to enforce it. After the parties exchanged filings, the district court issued a TRO in June 2025, set to remain in effect indefinitely, and delayed the hearing on the preliminary injunction multiple times, citing new evidence related to a superseding noncompete agreement.The district court clarified the TRO’s scope, found the petitioners in contempt for violating it, and denied their motion to dissolve the TRO. The court eventually allowed the employer to amend its complaint to reflect the new agreement and later issued an amended TRO. A preliminary injunction was finally issued in April 2026. The petitioners challenged the original TRO by writ petition, arguing that it exceeded the 14-day limit allowed by Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b).The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and clarified that, under NRCP 65(b)(2), the 14-day time limit applies to TROs regardless of whether they are issued with or without notice. The court held that a TRO cannot be indefinite and must expire after 14 days unless properly extended for good cause or by consent. Because the district court’s TRO was indefinite and not properly extended, it automatically expired 14 days after issuance. The Supreme Court of Nevada granted the writ of mandamus and directed the district court to declare the TRO expired as of June 23, 2025. View "HAVENS VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law

A medical institution in Puerto Rico borrowed over $10 million from a bank in 1984 to build a hospital, but soon disputes arose regarding the loan. The bank claimed the institution defaulted, while the institution asserted the bank failed to disburse funds as required. Litigation and bankruptcy proceedings followed. In 1991, the parties settled, but the terms of that settlement—whether the debt was split into interest-bearing and non-interest-bearing portions—remained contested. Over the next decades, the loan changed hands, and in 2013 the institution filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy again. The current loan-holder claimed a significantly higher outstanding balance than the institution believed was owed, due in part to differing interpretations of the 1991 agreement and subsequent bankruptcy plan.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico previously addressed these disputes. It issued orders requiring the institution to demonstrate, with evidence, that the 1991 agreement created a non-interest-bearing note and that it had made payments in accordance with the bankruptcy plan. The court denied discovery, required summary judgment briefing, and ultimately issued an order with minimal analysis, granting the loan-holder’s motion to dismiss and denying the institution’s motion for summary judgment. The court’s reasoning was ambiguous, referencing both summary judgment and pleading standards, and did not clearly identify the basis for its decision.On appeal, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico affirmed, concluding the bankruptcy plan did not incorporate the 1991 bifurcated note arrangement. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, reviewing the case, found the bankruptcy court’s order insufficiently reasoned to permit meaningful appellate review. The First Circuit vacated the lower courts’ decisions and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the bankruptcy court to clarify its reasoning, identify the applicable legal standards, and consider whether summary judgment or further fact-finding is appropriate. View "Instituto Medico del Norte, Inc. v. Greengift Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

Several counties and municipalities in New York initiated lawsuits in state courts against two pharmacy benefit managers, Express Scripts, Inc. and OptumRx, Inc., alleging that these companies contributed to the opioid epidemic in their communities. The claims are based on state law and center on the defendants’ alleged practices in negotiating with opioid manufacturers and managing prescription formularies, which plaintiffs contend led to an oversupply of prescription opioids and caused substantial public harm and government expense.The defendants removed the cases to federal court—the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York—arguing removal was proper under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), because some of the challenged conduct was performed under contracts with federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense (TRICARE), the Office of Personnel Management (FEHBP), and the Veterans Health Administration. After removal, the plaintiffs amended their complaints to disclaim any claims based on the defendants’ work for federal clients, seeking to have the cases remanded to state court. The district courts accepted the disclaimers and remanded the cases.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district courts’ decisions. It concluded that the disclaimers were ineffective because the alleged wrongful conduct and resulting harms could not be separated between federal and non-federal clients; the conduct was indivisible. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, the Second Circuit held that the defendants satisfied all statutory requirements for federal officer removal: they acted under federal direction, were sued for acts relating to federal authority, and asserted colorable federal defenses. The Second Circuit therefore reversed the remand orders and returned the cases to the district courts for further proceedings. View "County of Westchester v. Express Scripts" on Justia Law