Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that the superior court could adjudicate the challenge brought by Legacy Foundation Action Fund to the subject matter jurisdiction of the Clean Elections Commission in a collateral proceeding and that issue preclusion did not apply under the circumstances.The issues raised in this appeal stemmed from a 2014 election-related dispute between Legacy and the Commission. Legacy failed timely to appeal the final administrative decision of the Commission assessing a penalty for Legacy's violation of the Citizens Clean Elections Act. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the superior court lacked appellate jurisdiction to decide the issue of whether the Commission acted within its subject matter jurisdiction. At issue before the Supreme Court here was whether the superior court could adjudicate the issue of the Commission's jurisdiction in a collateral proceeding. The Supreme Court answered (1) because a judgment entered by a tribunal lacking subject matter jurisdiction was void the superior court could adjudicate Legacy's challenge to the Commission's subject matter jurisdiction in a collateral proceeding; and (2) because the Commission did not serve as a neutral decision maker in deciding its own jurisdiction, Legacy was deprived of a full and fair adjudication of the issue, and therefore, issue preclusion did not apply. View "Legacy Foundation Action Fund v. Citizens Clean Elections Comm'n" on Justia Law

Jane Doe, a three-year-old child, was in the custody of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (the “Department”); she was six days shy of her first birthday when the State removed her from the custody of her mother and placed her with a foster family. Her mother’s attempts to stick to a permanency plan were inconsistent, and while for the majority of the life of this case, the magistrate court held fast to a permanency goal of reunification, it modified that goal in the summer of 2022 so that termination of parental rights and adoption became the primary goals for Jane and reunification became the concurrent goal. Mother appealed the district court’s change of the permanency goals. She also sought a permissive appeal from the magistrate court to appeal to the district court. The magistrate court granted the motion. The district court dismissed the case and remanded it back to the magistrate court sua sponte after determining it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Mother then appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found no error in the district court’s judgment and affirmed. View "IDHW v. Jane Doe (2022-36)" on Justia Law

A U.S. Postal Service (USPS) vehicle allegedly ran over A.M.L.’s foot on July 18, 2018. A.M.L.’s mother sent a Claim for Damage, Injury or Death (Standard Form 95) to USPS in August 2018. A year later, A.M.L.’s attorney sent a demand letter that set forth A.M.L.’s medical expenses. After USPS denied liability, A.M.L. (by and through her parent) filed suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The government moved to dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that A.M.L. had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before bringing suit. The district court dismissed the suit, and A.M.L. appealed, arguing that her claims satisfied the FTCA’s presentment requirement.   The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded. The court held that Sections 2672 and 2675(b) do not require that a claim set forth a single-dollar amount, but that it must express the maximum value of the asserted claim. Accordingly, the expression of a range complies with the statute’s requirements because it presents the maximum value of the claim. A.M.L.’s claim of “$250,000 to $275,000” thus presented a sum certain in compliance with the FTCA’s presentment requirement. View "A.M.L. v. United States" on Justia Law

Olga Marcela Escobar-Eck was the President and Chief Executive Officer of Atlantis, a land use and strategic planning firm in San Diego. Atlantis helped submit an application, on behalf of All People’s Church (Church) to the City of San Diego (City) for the development of a church campus. The Church hired Atlantis around 2019 to guide it through the City's review and approval process. To this end, Escobar-Eck attended public meetings concerning the Church project and identified herself as a representative of the Church. Plaintiff Joshua Billauer lived in San Diego and worked for Wells Fargo. He was a neighborhood activist, and owned property in the Del Cerro area where the Church project was proposed. Billauer did not favor the Church project, emphasizing the project’s lack of housing despite the “ ‘major housing crisis’ ” in San Diego and speaking against it at community meetings. In 2020, Escobar-Eck was making a presentation on Zoom to a community planning group on behalf of the Church. During the a person who only was identifiable by the name "JJ" sent private messages to her through Zoom’s chat function, accusing Escobar-Eck of being dishonest about a house purchase that occurred near the Church. At the time of the message, Escobar-Eck did not know JJ’s true identity. Later, she learned JJ was Billauer. On December 10, 2020, Escobar-Eck posted a tweet on Twitter that was directed at Billauer’s employer, Wells Fargo, asserting Billauer was “[a] racist person who is engaging in cyberbullying.” On February 16, 2021, Billauer sued Escobar-Eck. The operative complaint includes a single cause of action entitled “Recovery of Damages.” Billauer claims that Escobar-Eck’s December 10 tweet constituted libel per se and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Billauer appealed an order denying his special motion to strike a cross-complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. In denying the motion, the court found that Billauer’s alleged posts were protected speech under the anti-SLAPP statute, but Escobar-Eck had shown a probability of success on the merits for her libel per se claim. The Court of Appeal concluded Escobar-Eck has satisfied her burden to establish a probability of success on the merits, and Billauer has not provided evidence to defeat her claims as a matter of law. View "Billauer v. Escobar-Eck" on Justia Law

The States of Illinois and Nevada (collectively referred to as “the States” or “Plaintiffs”) filed a mandamus action in the district court, seeking to compel the Archivist of the United States to certify and publish the Equal Rights Amendment (“ERA”) as part of the Constitution of the United States. The States argued that the Archivist had a duty to certify and publish the ERA because it was ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the States of the Union as required by Article V of the Constitution. The district court agreed, dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.   The DC Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the States have not clearly and indisputably shown that the Archivist had a duty to certify and publish the ERA or that Congress lacked the authority to place a time limit in the proposing clause of the ERA. Under the rigid standard required for mandamus actions, the court wrote it must affirm the district court’s dismissal of the States’ complaint on the ground that the lower court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. View "State of Illinois v. David Ferriero" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a qui tam case on behalf of the State of California alleging Defendants and Respondents engaged in medical insurance fraud. Plaintiff asserted the alleged fraud victimized the state workers’ compensation system, including the State Compensation Insurance Fund, as well as Medi-Cal, and brought her action under the California False Claims Act (CFCA) and the California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA). Plaintiff filed her qui tam complaint under seal and in camera as statutorily required. Before the matter reached trial, however, the trial court dismissed the action pursuant to the “five-year rule” set out in Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310.   The Second Appellate District reversed the judgment of dismissal, reinstated the action, and remanded it. The court held that the 962 days the action was kept under seal should have been excluded from the five-year period pursuant to Section 583.340(b). Further, the five-year period had not expired at the time the court dismissed the action. A five-year period totals 1,825 days. Adding to that period, the 962 days during which the action was under seal, the 712 days of the first stay and the 236 days of the second stay total 3,735 days. The date 3,735 days from the date Plaintiff filed her complaint (July 13, 2012) is October 3, 2022. Adding six months due to the COVID-19 emergency rule extends the period to April 3, 2023. Therefore, the trial court erred in prematurely dismissing Plaintiff’s action on February 24, 2021. View "State of Cal. ex. rel. Sills v. Gharib-Danesh" on Justia Law

The City of Palm Springs closed off one of its downtown streets to all vehicular traffic for a period of three years to allow a tourism organization to install and display a large statue of Marilyn Monroe in the middle of the street. A citizens’ group called the Committee to Relocate Marilyn ("the Committee") petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate challenging the street closure, alleging the City did not have the statutory authority to close the street. Additionally, the Committee alleged the City erroneously declared the street closure categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City demurred to the petition for writ of administrative mandate, arguing it had the authority to close the street for three years under Vehicle Code section 21101(e), and its local equivalent, Palm Springs Municipal Code section 12.80.010. The City claimed the street closure was temporary, and therefore permissible. Further, the City argued the CEQA cause of action was untimely. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of the City. After its review, the Court of Appeal concluded the Committee pleaded allegations sufficient to establish: (1) the City exceeded its authority under the Vehicle Code and Municipal Code; and (2) the timeliness of its CEQA cause of action. After the notice of exemption was filed, the City abandoned its plan to vacate vehicular access to the street and elected to close the street instead. Because the City materially changed the project after it filed its notice of exemption, and it did not afford the public an opportunity to consider the revised project or its environmental effects, the notice of exemption did not trigger a 35-day statute of limitations. Instead, the CEQA cause of action was subject to a default statute of limitations of 180 days, measured from the date the Committee knew or should have known about the changed project. The Court determined the Committee timely filed its CEQA cause of action. In light of these conclusions, the Court reversed the judgment of dismissal, vacated the demurrer ruling, and instructed the trial court to enter a new order overruling the demurrer as to these three causes of action. View "Committee to Relocate Marilyn v. City of Palm Springs" on Justia Law

This case concerned the statute of limitations in the California Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act. One of these protections was described in Government Code section 3304 (d)(1): a public agency cannot discipline a peace officer “for any act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct” unless the agency completes its investigation and notifies the officer of its proposed discipline “within one year of the public agency’s discovery by a person authorized to initiate an investigation of the allegation of an act, omission, or other misconduct.” Under the interpretation offered by appellant Luis Garcia, section 3304(d)(1)’s one-year limitations period begins to run on all acts of misconduct once the agency initiates an investigation into any one of these acts. But under the second interpretation, offered by Garcia’s employer, the limitations period begins to run on an act of misconduct only once the agency discovers that particular act. The Court of Appeal determined the latter interpretation was the correct one: Section 3304(d)(1)’s text was "clear" that the limitations period for an act of misconduct begins to run on the date the agency discovers the misconduct, not the date it initiates an investigation into unrelated misconduct. Under this rule, as under similar discovery rules, each act of misconduct must be considered separately in determining the date the agency discovered the misconduct. Because the trial court here interpreted section 3304(d)(1) consistent with the Court of Appeal's interpretation, the judgment was affirmed. View "Garcia v. State Dept. of Developmental Services" on Justia Law

A woman who suffered from schizophrenia appealed court orders authorizing her involuntary commitment and administration of psychotropic medication. She argued the superior court erred by relying on a cursory report from the court visitor and by failing to make specific findings that involuntary medication was in her best interests. She also contended it was error to commit her to a psychiatric hospital instead of to a less restrictive facility. Finding no reversible error, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s orders. View "In the Matter of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of: Tonja P." on Justia Law

Petitioners PF Sunset Plaza, LLC (“Sunset Plaza”) and PF Holdings, LLC (“Holdings”) were each assessed monetary penalties by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) for violations of their duty to provide “decent, safe, and sanitary housing” to low-income families under Section 8. Petitioners petitioned to reverse ALJ decisions dismissing these HUD enforcement actions against them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. At issue on appeal is whether the statute operates to bar the appeal of a civil monetary penalty should a respondent miss the fifteen-day deadline to request an administrative hearing?   The DC Circuit answered yes, and denied both petitions. The court explained that Petitioners claim that because the deadline falls under a subheading entitled “Final Orders,” a final order from HUD must occur before operation of the deadline commences. Petitioners argued that HUD’s issuance of a complaint is simply an invitation to engage in litigation, not a triggering of the fifteen-day deadline. Because HUD issued no final order here, they contest that the fifteen-day period never began. The court held that Petitioners misunderstand the statutory subheading. Congress entitled the section “Final Orders” because it enumerates two examples of how HUD’s penalties become final. View "PF Holdings, LLC v. HUD" on Justia Law