Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In 2019, Tamika Miller filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA) against Citibank, alleging that the bank violated 2015 consent orders by hiding failures in its management of third-party risks to avoid paying regulatory fines. Miller claimed that Citibank altered audit reports to downplay compliance violations, thereby avoiding penalties. The United States declined to intervene in June 2020. In October 2020, Citibank entered into a new consent order with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and paid a $400 million civil penalty. Miller sought a share of this penalty, arguing it was an alternate remedy for her qui tam claim.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Citibank's motion to dismiss Miller's complaint for failure to state a claim and denied her motion for a share of the $400 million penalty. The court found that Miller failed to allege an "obligation" to pay the government as required by the FCA and did not meet the particularity requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The court also denied Miller's request for leave to amend her complaint, concluding that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Miller failed to state a reverse false claim because she did not allege an established duty for Citibank to pay the government. The court also found that Miller's complaint did not meet the particularity requirement of Rule 9(b) as it failed to identify specific false statements or reports. Consequently, Miller was not entitled to a share of the $400 million penalty, and the district court did not err in denying her leave to amend her complaint. View "Miller v. United States, Citibank, N.A." on Justia Law

Hermilo Cantu Silva sustained a gunshot wound when a Border Patrol Agent attempted to apprehend him for suspected illegal entry into the United States. Silva sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), asserting several intentional tort claims and negligence. The case proceeded to a bench trial solely on the negligence claim. At the close of evidence, the trial court raised the potential applicability of the discretionary function exception, which the parties briefed. The trial court determined that the discretionary function exception deprived the court of jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held a bench trial and, at the close of evidence, raised the issue of the discretionary function exception. The Government filed a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, and Silva responded. The trial court concluded that the discretionary function exception applied, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction over Silva’s FTCA claim. Silva appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The appellate court agreed with the lower court that the discretionary function exception applied. The court found that Agent Mendoza’s decision to draw and not re-holster his firearm was discretionary and grounded in policy considerations, meeting both prongs of the Gaubert test. Consequently, the discretionary function exception precluded subject matter jurisdiction over Silva’s FTCA claim. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case. View "Silva v. United States" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, property owners in West Virginia, filed a lawsuit against the current and former owners of abandoned oil and gas wells on their properties. They sought damages for the defendants' failure to plug the wells, alleging common law nuisance, trespass, and negligence. The defendants argued that the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) was responsible for well plugging and that WVDEP had approved transactions between the defendants, which purportedly relaxed their statutory duty to plug the wells. They claimed WVDEP was an indispensable party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 and, because it could not be joined due to sovereign immunity, sought judgment in their favor under Rule 12(c).The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia denied the defendants' motion, ruling that WVDEP was not a necessary and indispensable party under Rule 19. The court concluded that it could grant the plaintiffs damages on their common law claims without implicating the State’s interests. The defendants then filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing that the district court's order was reviewable under the collateral order doctrine, as it effectively denied WVDEP sovereign immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the district court's order did not rule on any immunity issue but only on whether WVDEP was a necessary and indispensable party under Rule 19. The appellate court found that the order did not satisfy the requirements of the collateral order doctrine and was not a final decision. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "McEvoy v. Diversified Energy Company PLC" on Justia Law

The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence generated a report on the Detention and Interrogation Program conducted by the CIA after September 11th. The Committee transmitted the report to various federal agencies. Douglas Cox submitted FOIA requests to these agencies for their copies of the report. The agencies denied the requests, arguing that the report is a congressional record, not an agency record, and thus not subject to FOIA disclosure.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of the agencies, agreeing that the report is a congressional record not subject to FOIA. The court also denied Cox’s request for discovery.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court applied the test from Behar v. United States Department of Homeland Security, which asks whether the non-covered entity (Congress) manifested a clear intent to control the documents. The court found that the Committee had a clear intent to control the report at the time of its creation, as evidenced by a June 2, 2009, letter. The court concluded that the Committee’s subsequent actions did not vitiate this intent. Therefore, the report remains a congressional record not subject to FOIA. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery, as Cox failed to show bad faith or provide evidence that the exemptions claimed by the agencies were improper. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Cox v. Dep't of Justice" on Justia Law

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor of Delaware issued a series of emergency orders that included restrictions on religious services. These restrictions, which were lifted by June 2020, limited in-person worship to ten people and imposed various other mandates. Over 18 months later, two religious leaders filed suit in the Court of Chancery seeking injunctive relief against these restrictions, which were no longer in effect. The Court of Chancery dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of future harm.The plaintiffs then transferred their action to the Superior Court, seeking declaratory judgment and damages for alleged violations of their constitutional rights. The Superior Court dismissed the claims, ruling that the requests for declaratory relief were not justiciable because the restrictions had been lifted and there was no ongoing controversy. Additionally, the court found that the Governor was immune from the damages claims under the State Tort Claims Act and the doctrine of qualified immunity.On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The Court agreed that the plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable apprehension of future harm, which is necessary for injunctive relief. The Court also held that the plaintiffs' claims for declaratory judgment were not justiciable because there was no ongoing controversy and the alleged harm could not be redressed by a declaratory judgment. Finally, the Court upheld the Superior Court's finding that the Governor was immune from damages claims, as his actions were discretionary and taken in good faith during an unprecedented public health crisis. View "In re Covid-Related Restrictions on Religious Services" on Justia Law

The North Central Montana Regional Water Authority (the Authority) was created in 2000 through an interlocal agreement among several municipalities and county water and sewer districts. The Town of Kevin, a small municipality with fewer than 175 residents, did not sign the original agreement but signed several later documents attempting to join the Authority. The Town later sought to sever ties with the Authority, which resisted these attempts. On May 29, 2020, the Town sued the Authority, seeking a declaratory judgment under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) that it was not, and never had been, a member of the Authority, and also sought attorney fees.The Twelfth Judicial District Court held a bench trial and issued an order on November 10, 2022, declaring that the Town was not a member of the Authority and granting other relief. Subsequently, the Town filed a motion for attorney fees under the UDJA. On March 30, 2023, the District Court found that equitable factors supported awarding attorney fees to the Town, noting the significant disparity in resources between the Town and the Authority. The Authority appealed this order.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the UDJA provides a legal basis for awarding attorney fees between governmental entities when appropriate. The court found that the parties were not similarly situated, as the Town had significantly fewer resources compared to the Authority. The court also applied the "tangible parameters test" and concluded that the Authority possessed what the Town sought, it was necessary for the Town to seek a declaration, and the declaratory relief was necessary to change the status quo. Therefore, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to the Town. The Supreme Court affirmed the award of attorney fees to the Town. View "Town of Kevin v. North Central Montana Regional Water Authority" on Justia Law

Robert Decker, a federal inmate, requested electronic access to the full, daily editions of the Federal Register from his prison law library. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) denied his request, prompting Decker to file a pro se lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act. He claimed that the denial violated his First Amendment rights to receive information and petition the government. The BOP argued that its policy was justified by the need to conserve limited resources.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the BOP. The court applied the framework from Turner v. Safley, concluding that the BOP’s policy was reasonably related to its legitimate penological interest in conserving resources. The district court also denied Decker’s motions for the recruitment of counsel, finding that he was competent to litigate his case despite the challenges of incarceration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that the BOP’s policy was reasonably related to its legitimate interest in conserving resources. The court noted that the BOP provided access to documents pertaining to the Bureau and the U.S. Parole Commission and allowed inmates to receive print copies of the Federal Register through the mail. The court found that Decker had alternative means to exercise his First Amendment rights, although they were less convenient. The court also upheld the district court’s denial of Decker’s motions for the recruitment of counsel, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.In summary, the Seventh Circuit held that the BOP’s policy of providing limited electronic access to the Federal Register was constitutionally valid under Turner v. Safley and that the district court did not err in denying Decker’s request for appointed counsel. View "Decker v. Sireveld" on Justia Law

Andres Cabezas was arrested in an FBI sting operation in 2017 and later pled guilty to receipt of child pornography. While his appeal was pending, he submitted FOIA requests to the FBI for records related to his case. After six months without a response, Cabezas filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking the release of the requested records. The FBI eventually released some records but withheld others, citing various FOIA exemptions. The district court granted summary judgment to the FBI, finding that it had conducted a reasonable search and properly withheld documents under FOIA and the Privacy Act.Cabezas appealed the district court's decision, challenging the adequacy of the FBI's search and the justification for withholding records. He also contested the denial of his motions for limited discovery and in camera review. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo and found that the FBI had made a good faith effort to conduct a reasonable search, using appropriate methods and search terms. The court also found that the FBI's affidavits provided a detailed account of the search process and the reasons for withholding certain records.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, agreeing that the FBI had conducted a reasonable search and properly invoked FOIA exemptions to withhold certain records. The court also upheld the denial of Cabezas's motions for limited discovery and in camera review, finding no abuse of discretion. The court concluded that Cabezas had not provided sufficient evidence to challenge the adequacy of the FBI's search or the validity of the exemptions claimed. View "Cabezas v. FBI" on Justia Law

The case involves a public-records request submitted by David Armiak and the Center for Media and Democracy to the Ohio Attorney General. The request sought documents related to the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) and the Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF). The Attorney General refused to produce the documents, arguing they were not public records as defined by Ohio law. Armiak then filed a mandamus action to compel the production of the documents.The Tenth District Court of Appeals handled the initial proceedings. During discovery, the court allowed Armiak to conduct broad discovery to test the Attorney General's claim that the documents were not public records. This included deposing the Attorney General and obtaining extensive documents and interrogatories. The Attorney General sought a protective order to limit this discovery, arguing it was overly burdensome and interfered with his constitutional duties. The Tenth District denied the protective order and allowed the broad discovery to proceed.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case to determine whether the discovery order was appealable. The court found that the order met the criteria for a provisional remedy under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4), as it determined the action regarding the discovery dispute and prevented a judgment in favor of the Attorney General. The court also found that the Attorney General would not be able to obtain effective relief through an appeal following final judgment, as the discovery process itself would cause irreparable harm. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Ohio denied Armiak's motion to dismiss the appeal and set the matter for oral argument. View "State ex rel. Ctr. for Media & Democracy v. Yost" on Justia Law

The case involves a coalition of states led by Washington suing the FDA over its 2023 REMS, which eliminated in-person dispensing requirements for the abortion drug mifepristone. Washington argues that the FDA should have further reduced restrictions on the drug, claiming that the remaining requirements impose unnecessary hurdles. Idaho, leading another coalition of states, sought to intervene, arguing that the elimination of the in-person dispensing requirement would harm its interests by making the drug easier to obtain and harder to police, potentially increasing Medicaid costs and endangering maternal health and fetal life.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington denied Idaho's motion to intervene. The court found that Idaho did not have a significantly protectable interest that would be impaired by the litigation, as its complaint concerned different aspects of the 2023 REMS. The court also denied permissive intervention, concluding that Idaho's claims did not share common questions of law or fact with Washington's claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's denial of Idaho's motion to intervene as of right. The Ninth Circuit held that Idaho must independently satisfy the requirements of Article III standing because it sought different relief from Washington. The court concluded that Idaho's complaint did not establish a cognizable injury-in-fact that was fairly traceable to the FDA's revised safe-use restrictions. Idaho's alleged economic injuries, law enforcement burdens, and quasi-sovereign interests were deemed too speculative or indirect to confer standing. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the portion of the appeal concerning the denial of permissive intervention. View "STATE OF WASHINGTON V. FDA" on Justia Law