Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

After being found not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity, C.F. was admitted to a state hospital, where he was treated with antipsychotic medication under a court order. When the Department of State Hospitals sought to renew the order authorizing involuntary medication, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing. C.F.’s counsel did not request a court reporter, though one could have been provided at no cost by simply submitting a form. Consequently, no verbatim record of the hearing was made, and C.F. did not attend, with his counsel waiving his appearance.The Superior Court of Napa County heard from the Department’s expert witness and found, by clear and convincing evidence, that C.F. lacked capacity to refuse treatment, granting the renewal for up to one year. C.F. appealed, arguing that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his lawyer did not secure a record of the hearing. When C.F. later applied for a settled statement to reconstruct the hearing for appellate review, the trial court denied the request, finding he had waived his right to a record by not requesting a reporter.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Five, found that C.F.’s counsel’s failure to request a reporter constituted deficient performance, with no tactical explanation and resulting prejudice. The absence of a hearing record rendered meaningful appellate review impossible, amounting to a denial of due process and effective assistance of counsel. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded for a new hearing, noting that if the Department seeks to renew the order after its expiration, the new hearing may be combined with any future renewal petition. View "People v. C.F." on Justia Law

Two pharmaceutical companies developing treatments for achondroplasia, a genetic disorder, became involved in litigation after one company (Ascendis) filed a New Drug Application (NDA) for its product. The other company (BioMarin), holding a relevant patent, filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging patent infringement by Ascendis’s product. Shortly afterward, Ascendis filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking a judgment of non-infringement and arguing that its activities were protected under the statutory “safe harbor” for regulatory approval.More than thirty days after filing its district court complaint, Ascendis moved for an expedited hearing. BioMarin responded by seeking to dismiss or stay the district court action pending the ITC’s investigation. Ascendis voluntarily dismissed its complaint without prejudice and promptly refiled a nearly identical complaint, this time moving for a mandatory stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a)(2), which requires a district court to stay its proceedings if requested within thirty days of the action’s filing or of being named as a respondent in the ITC. BioMarin opposed, contending Ascendis’s request was untimely, and sought a discretionary stay instead.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted BioMarin’s motion for a discretionary stay and denied Ascendis’s motion for a mandatory stay as moot. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that § 1659(a)(2) does not permit a litigant to restart the thirty-day period for a mandatory stay by voluntarily dismissing and refiling a substantially identical action. The court reasoned that the statutory deadline applies to the original action and that allowing refiling would circumvent the statute’s purpose. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. View "ASCENDIS PHARMA A/S v. BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL INC. " on Justia Law

A California-based company that produces lab-grown chicken sought to distribute and sell its product in Florida. After the company received federal approval from the USDA and FDA to market its lab-grown chicken, Florida enacted SB 1084, a law banning the manufacture, sale, and distribution of all lab-grown meat within the state. The company had previously held tasting events and developed business relationships in Florida but had no plans to manufacture its product there.Following the enactment of SB 1084, the company filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida against state officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The company argued that the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) preempted Florida’s ban, claiming the state’s law imposed “additional or different” ingredient or facilities requirements in violation of the PPIA. The district court denied the company’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding the company unlikely to succeed on its preemption claims because SB 1084 did not regulate the company’s ingredients, premises, facilities, or operations. The court also addressed standing and procedural questions, ultimately dismissing the preemption claims after the company amended its complaint.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether the filing of an amended complaint or the district court’s dismissal order rendered the appeal moot and whether the company could challenge the Florida law as preempted. The Eleventh Circuit held the appeal was not moot and that the company could bring a preemption action in equity. However, the court concluded the company was unlikely to succeed on the merits. The court held that Florida’s ban did not impose ingredient or facilities requirements preempted by the PPIA, as it simply banned the product’s sale and manufacture. Therefore, the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Upside Foods Inc v. Commissioner, Florida Department of Agriculture" on Justia Law

A patient was hospitalized after contracting COVID-19 and, as his condition worsened, was transferred between several hospitals in Kentucky and Indiana. During his treatment, he was intubated, placed on a ventilator, and medically immobilized. While under this care, he developed a severe bed sore that progressed to necrotizing fasciitis. Despite ongoing treatment, he ultimately died, with his death certificate listing multiple causes including cardiopulmonary arrest and sepsis. His estate claimed that negligence in the treatment of the bed sore caused his death and filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint against more than eighty healthcare providers.The case began when the estate filed its complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance, while a medical-review panel was being requested. Before the panel was constituted, the providers moved for summary judgment in Vanderburgh Superior Court, arguing they were immune from liability under Indiana’s Healthcare Immunity Act, Premises Immunity Act, and the federal PREP Act. The trial court granted summary judgment for the providers, finding that statutory immunity applied and that the court, not the medical-review panel, could decide the immunity issue. The estate appealed, and the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the question of immunity required expert input from the medical-review panel, especially regarding causation.The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacating the Court of Appeals’ decision. It held that the trial court could make a preliminary determination on statutory immunity without waiting for a medical-review panel’s opinion, since the facts relating to the connection between the patient’s COVID-19 treatment and his injury were undisputed for summary judgment purposes. The court further held that the providers were immune from civil liability under both state and federal law, as the patient’s injuries arose from treatment provided in response to the COVID-19 emergency. The court affirmed summary judgment for the providers. View "Estate of Waggoner v. Anonymous Health System, Inc." on Justia Law

The case centers on a dispute involving a pharmaceutical company founded by the plaintiff, who also served as its CEO. The plaintiff obtained investment from a Canadian entity controlled by one of the defendants, who later became a director. The company entered into a profitable licensing agreement for a drug, and the plaintiff claims he was personally entitled to 30% of the profits based on an oral agreement. The investor and his affiliates, however, allege that the plaintiff wrongfully diverted corporate assets by taking this share. After disagreements arose, the investor replaced himself and another director on the board with officers from his own affiliates, who began investigating the alleged diversion. In response, the plaintiff initiated litigation, asserting that the investigation was a breach of fiduciary duty and that the investor and his affiliates acted in bad faith for their own benefit.Previously, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware was asked to consider several claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference against the investor, his affiliates, and the two new directors. The investor’s affiliate moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the court found it had no jurisdiction over the affiliate. The court also examined whether it had jurisdiction over the investor for claims other than those related to his service as a director, finding it did not because the complaint failed to state a viable claim against him in that capacity.In the present decision, the Court of Chancery held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the investor’s affiliate and over the investor in his non-director capacities, dismissing those claims without prejudice. The court further dismissed with prejudice the breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy claims against the directors and the investor in his director capacity, finding no viable claims were stated. However, the court allowed the plaintiff’s claim for a declaratory judgment regarding his right to the profits from the drug to proceed against the company, provided an amended complaint is filed naming the company as a proper defendant. View "MacLaughlan v. Einheiber" on Justia Law

A Texas nonprofit health center, CentroMed, experienced a data breach in 2024 that exposed the personal information of its patients. Arturo Gonzalez, representing himself and others affected, filed a class action in Bexar County, Texas, alleging that CentroMed failed to adequately protect their private information. CentroMed, which receives federal funding and has occasionally been deemed a Public Health Service (PHS) employee under federal law, sought to remove the case to federal court, claiming removal was proper under 42 U.S.C. § 233 and 28 U.S.C. § 1442.After CentroMed was served, it notified the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the United States Attorney, seeking confirmation that the data breach claims fell within the scope of PHS employee immunity. The United States Attorney appeared in state court within the required 15 days, ultimately informing the court that CentroMed was not deemed a PHS employee for the acts at issue because the claims did not arise from medical or related functions. Despite this, CentroMed removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas 37 days after service. The district court granted Gonzalez’s motion to remand, concluding that removal was improper under both statutes: the Attorney General had timely appeared, precluding removal under § 233, and removal under § 1442 was untimely.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s remand. The Fifth Circuit held that CentroMed could not remove under § 233 because the Attorney General had timely appeared and made a case-specific negative determination. The court further held that removal under § 1442 was untimely, as CentroMed did not remove within 30 days of receiving the initial pleading. Thus, the remand to state court was affirmed. View "Gonzalez v. El Centro Del Barrio" on Justia Law

Indiana amended its laws in 2022 to prohibit and criminalize the use of telehealth and telemedicine for abortions, requiring that abortion-inducing drugs be dispensed and consumed in person by a physician in a hospital or qualified surgical center. The Satanic Temple, a Massachusetts-based religious nonprofit, operates a telehealth abortion clinic serving only patients in New Mexico but seeks to extend these services to its Indiana members. It does not run, nor intends to operate, an in-person abortion clinic in Indiana or maintain ties to Indiana hospitals or surgical centers. The Temple filed suit against the Indiana Attorney General and Marion County Prosecutor, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the criminal statute (§ 16-34-2-7(a)) and to obtain declaratory relief under Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana reviewed the case and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The court found that the Satanic Temple failed to identify any specific member who suffered an injury from the challenged law, thus lacking associational standing. It also held that the Temple itself lacked standing, as it could not show an injury in fact and could not demonstrate that favorable relief would redress its alleged harms due to other Indiana laws independently barring its intended conduct.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Seventh Circuit held that the Satanic Temple lacked both associational and individual standing. The Temple failed to identify a specific injured member and relied only on statistical probabilities and generalized claims of stigmatic injury, which were insufficient. Additionally, the Temple did not present concrete plans to violate the law, and even if § 16-34-2-7(a) were enjoined, other statutes would independently prevent its telehealth abortion services in Indiana. Thus, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Satanic Temple, Inc. v Rokita" on Justia Law

The case involves a woman, M.S., who was the subject of a petition filed by the State in May 2024, alleging she was mentally ill and dangerous under Nebraska law. The petition was supported by statements from M.S.’ daughter, who described recent concerning behavior, including M.S. bringing a gun to her daughter’s home, appearing paranoid, and exhibiting signs of being out of touch with reality. M.S. was admitted to a psychiatric facility pending commitment proceedings, and a hearing was held before the Mental Health Board of the Fourth Judicial District. During the proceedings, M.S. was represented by counsel and objected to certain testimony on confrontation and hearsay grounds.The Mental Health Board overruled M.S.’ motion for a continuance and proceeded with the commitment hearing, where it heard testimony from a psychiatrist, M.S.’ daughter, and M.S. herself. The Board found, by clear and convincing evidence, that M.S. suffered from bipolar I disorder, manic with psychosis, and was dangerous to herself and others. The Board ordered inpatient treatment and authorized forced medication. M.S. appealed to the District Court for Douglas County, arguing that her rights to confrontation were violated, that inadmissible hearsay was admitted, and that the evidence was insufficient to support her commitment. The district court affirmed the Board’s decision, ruling that any errors in admitting certain evidence were harmless because the facts were otherwise established in the record.On further appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s decision. It held that confrontation rights under both the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions, as extended by statute to mental health commitment proceedings, are trial rights that do not apply to pretrial hearings. The court further found that the challenged statements by family members were admissible under the medical purpose exception to the hearsay rule. The court concluded that clear and convincing evidence supported the findings that M.S. was mentally ill and dangerous, and that the treatment ordered was the least restrictive alternative. The district court’s order was affirmed. View "In re Interest of M.S." on Justia Law

Jill Esche, who was seven months pregnant, was admitted to Renown Regional Medical Center in Nevada with severe hypertension and erratic behavior. Hospital staff, believing she was mentally ill and a danger to herself and her fetus, petitioned for her involuntary commitment under Nevada law. While the petition was pending, Esche was kept in the hospital, given psychiatric and medical treatment against her will, restricted from visitors and phone use, and not informed that a public defender had been appointed for her. After giving birth by C-section, the hospital decided to withdraw the commitment petition but allowed Esche to leave while she was still in fragile condition. She died outside near the hospital that night. Her estate and survivors sued the hospital and several staff members, alleging violations of her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Nevada law.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment to the defendants on some claims, including unreasonable seizure and procedural due process claims, but denied summary judgment on others, such as substantive due process, conspiracy, and failure-to-train-or-supervise claims. The court also denied the defendants’ assertion of a good-faith defense to § 1983 liability, finding that the defense did not apply because the hospital was not required by law or directed by a public official to hold Esche involuntarily. Both sides appealed: the defendants challenged the denial of the good-faith defense, and the plaintiffs cross-appealed the dismissal of other constitutional claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court’s denial of the good-faith defense was not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, as the defense is a defense to liability, not an immunity from suit. The court dismissed both the defendants’ appeals and the plaintiffs’ cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Estate of Esche v. Bunuel-Jordana" on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs, including a medical practice, individual physicians, a medical society, and two patients, brought various claims against a health insurer, alleging that the insurer interfered with doctor-patient relationships, denied or delayed coverage for medical services, and caused significant harm to patients. The claims included tortious interference with contractual rights, unfair competition, RICO violations, and emotional distress, with specific factual allegations that the insurer’s actions led to worsened medical outcomes for the patients involved.The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit reviewed the insurer’s motion to compel arbitration based on arbitration clauses in provider agreements and member handbooks. Instead of determining whether the claims were subject to arbitration, the circuit court focused on the alleged unconscionability of the contracts as a whole, finding them to be contracts of adhesion and unconscionable, and denied the motion to compel arbitration. The court also denied summary judgment as to one patient’s claims and did not stay the medical society’s claims pending arbitration.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi reviewed the case and held that the circuit court erred by not following the required analytical framework for arbitrability. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court’s order in part, holding that claims arising under the Participating Physician Agreement must be referred to arbitration because the agreement delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Claims under the Medicare and QUEST Agreements were also subject to arbitration, as the arbitration clauses were not shown to be substantively unconscionable. However, the Court held that the claims of one patient and the physician as a patient were not subject to mandatory arbitration, and another patient’s claims were not subject to a grievance and appeals clause. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Frederick A. Nitta, M.D., Inc. v. Hawaii Medical Service Association." on Justia Law