Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against Lockheed and others for injuries suffered by her father as a result of asbestos exposure sustained by him during his work as an Air Force mechanic in locations in Europe and around the United States, but not in Connecticut. Lockheed, a major aerospace company with a worldwide presence, is both incorporated and maintains its principal place of business in Maryland. The district court dismissed the suit against Lockheed. The court agreed with the district court that the district court did not have general jurisdiction over Lockheed. By applying the due process principles of Daimler AG v. Bauman, and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, the court concluded that Lockheed’s contacts with Connecticut, while perhaps “continuous and systematic,” fall well below the high level needed to place the corporation “essentially at home” in the state. Further, upon the court's examination of Connecticut law, the court concluded that by registering to transact business and appointing an agent under the Connecticut statutes - which do not speak clearly on this point - Lockheed did not consent to the state courts’ exercise of general jurisdiction over it. The court noted that a more sweeping interpretation would raise constitutional concerns prudently avoided absent a clearer statement by the state legislature or the Connecticut Supreme Court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp." on Justia Law

Ramara engaged Sentry as a general contractor to perform work at its Philadelphia parking garage. Sentry engaged a subcontractor, Fortress, to install concrete and steel components. As required by its agreement with Sentry, Fortress obtained a general liability insurance policy from Westfield naming Ramara as an additional insured. In April 2012, Axe, a Fortress employee, was injured in an accident. Axe filed a tort action against Ramara and Sentry but did not include Fortress as a defendant as it was immune from actions by its employees if they were entitled to compensation for their injuries under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. Ramara tendered its defense to Westfield, which declined to defend, claiming that Axe’s complaint did not include allegations imposing that obligation under its policy. The district court granted partial summary judgment to Ramara, and later entered a second order, a quantified judgment against Westfield for Ramara’s counsel fees and costs incurred to date. The Third Circuit first held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to alter its first order with respect to the aspects of that order already on appeal. The court affirmed that Westfield has a duty to defend Ramara in the underlying Axe action. View "Ramara Inc v. Westfield Ins. Co" on Justia Law

Perreice Collins filed a wrongful death action on behalf of her minor daughter, Shoniqwa, and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Shoniqwa’s stillborn daughter, Shataja. Finding that Collins had not shown good cause for her failure to effect service of process upon Dr. Toikus Westbrook, the Circuit Court granted Westbrook’s motion to dismiss. Collins appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Collins petitioned the Mississippi Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court held that Collins offered uncontradicted proof of “good cause” in explanation of her failure to serve process upon Dr. Toikus Westbrook within 120 days of having filed a civil complaint as required by Rule 4(h) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, Collins established “excusable neglect,” as contemplated by Rule 6(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, entitling her to an extension of time in which to serve process upon Westbrook. The judgments of the Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals were reversed and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Collins v. Westbrook" on Justia Law

At the heart of these three consolidated appeals was Sky Harbor’s alleged failure to pay rent to the Cheyenne Regional Airport and to leave the Airport premises. Sky Harbor argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide any of the cases now on appeal. The district court generally ruled in favor of the Airport in all three cases. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district and circuit courts did not lack subject matter jurisdiction in the three combined appeals; and (2) the judgments were entered in accordance with the law. View "Sky Harbor Air Serv., Inc. v. Cheyenne Reg’l Airport Bd." on Justia Law

Trinity filed an administrative claim in 2012 and a complaint in federal court in 2013 under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1), 2680(h), alleging malicious prosecution. In 1999, Trinity was indicted for illegally storing hazardous waste without a permit and the charges were dismissed in 2003. The district court dismissed Trinity's claim as time barred. The principal issue on appeal is whether equitable tolling is applicable in this case where one of the federal agents investigating Trinity intentionally concealed his extramarital affair with another investigator. Under Louisiana law, a claim of malicious prosecution requires showing both an “absence of probable cause” and “the presence of malice.” Thus, the only evidentiary basis for a viable malicious-prosecution FTCA claim “well grounded in fact” would be evidence to support the allegations that federal law enforcement officers maliciously instigated the prosecution despite a lack of probable cause. The court held that the district court erred by failing to equitably toll the statute of limitations, determining that the Government has not met its burden of conclusively establishing that Trinity would have discovered evidence to support the allegations in the complaint through the exercise of reasonable diligence prior to 2011. In this case, neither the unsealed grand jury testimony nor the amended complaint conclusively establish that Trinity would have discovered evidence to verify the allegations that federal law enforcement officials maliciously instigated the case despite a lack of probable cause. Accordingly, the court reversed as to this issue. The court concluded, however, that collateral estoppel is not applicable in this case. The court affirmed as to this issue. View "Trinity Marine Products, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Noboa, while living in Illinois, booked a trip to Mexico by using the Orbitz website. In the lobby of the Barcelo hotel, she booked an eco-tour, operated by Rancho. During the tour, the all-terrain vehicle in which Noboa was riding overturned. She died as a result of her injuries. The district court dismissed her estate's suit against Barcelo and Rancho, finding neither company subject to jurisdiction in Illinois. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that Noboa's death was connected to Illinois through a causal chain that began with her booking the trip while in Illinois. View "Noboa v. Barcelo Corp. Empresaria, SA" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that she was shopping at a Walgreens store when she was hit and injured by a ball that an employee of Walgreens had thrown. The trial justice eventually dismissed the case with prejudice “for failure to proceed at trial” after first denying Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that, in light of the unusual circumstances of this case, the trial justice abused her discretion in dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of prosecution and in denying Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance and/or mistrial. View "Cotter v. Dias" on Justia Law

This case concerned the application of the relation-back doctrine to wrongful-death claims. The trial court allowed James O. Kidd, Sr., the personal representative of the estate of Madeline Kidd, to use relation back to sustain his claims against various health-care providers. Some of those providers, defendants Mobile Infirmary Association d/b/a Mobile Infirmary Medical Center, Dr. Roger Alvarado, Dr. Barbara Mitchell, and IMC-Diagnostic and Medical Clinic, P.C., sought review of the trial court's order by filing separate petitions for permissive appeals. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in permitting the relation-back doctrine, reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Mobile Infirmary Association v. Estate of Madeline Kidd" on Justia Law

Regions Bank appealed a final judgment dismissing its action against BP P.L.C., BP Corporation North America, Inc., and BP America Inc. (collectively, "BP"). In 2010, an explosion and fire occurred aboard the Deepwater Horizon, an offshore-drilling rig, located off the coast of Louisiana. The incident led to a massive discharge of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, which, in turn, spawned an expansive clean-up and response operation by BP and various governmental agencies. Regions owned coastal real property located in Baldwin County, Alabama. Regions filed this trespass action against BP in Alabama Circuit Court, alleging BP occupied Regions' property, without authorization, for its spill-response operation; that BP moved equipment and structures onto the property without permission; and that BP erected fences and barriers on the property, again, without permission. Regions further alleged that BP stored hazardous materials and waste on the property and that those hazardous materials and waste damaged the property. BP filed a Rule 12(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., "motion to dismiss" Regions' trespass action on the ground that it was subject to the class-action settlement approved in the multidistrict litigation (MDL) and, therefore, that dismissal was warranted on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata. After review, the Alabama Supreme Court found "clear and unequivocal" exceptions to the MDL economic-and-property-damage-settlement class, and concluded that Regions was not a member of the settlement class. Therefore, its trespass claim was not adjudicated as part of the MDL class-action settlement. Accordingly, the Court reversed the circuit court for dismissing Regions' action on the ground of res judicata. View "Regions Bank v. BP P.L.C. et al." on Justia Law

Tinoco, employed by Express, injured Escobar by negligently operating a vehicle. Escobar received treatment at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, owned and operated by the county, at a cost of $1,249,545.38. Escobar sued Tinoco and Express and recovered a judgment for $5,689.624.87. County asserted a lien against the judgment pursuant to Government Code 23004.1. Escobar’s attorney contended that the county was not entitled to the full amount of its bill but only to some lesser amount under schedules promulgated by the Workers Compensation Appeals Board. Express delivered a $1,249,545.38 check to Escobar’s attorney payable to the county and Carcione’s firm. The county sued Express, for statutory liability; Express and Escobar for money had and received; Escobar for value of services rendered; and Escobar, for imposition of a constructive trust. The trial court dismissed, ruling that the county could no longer pursue its own action against Express, but must seek enforcement of the lien in Monterey courts. The court of appeal reversed. An adjudicated tortfeasor holding disputed funds known to be encumbered by a public hospital lien cannot avoid liability by turning control of the funds over to the injured person in a check payable to both contestants, which satisfies neither the judgment nor the lien. View "Cnty. of Santa Clara v. Escobar" on Justia Law