Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

At issue before the Supreme Court in this case was a Superior Court's grant of summary judgment to defendants, Fairwinds Church and Fairwinds Christian School (collectively, “Fairwinds”), in an action brought by former student Kimberly Hecksher under the Child Victim‟s Act. Hecksher sued Fairwinds under the Act, arguing that Fairwinds, a small, religious school, was grossly negligent for failing to prevent sexual abuse by Ed Sterling (her foster father and her teacher at Fairwinds), that occurred while she was a student. Hecksher alleged that Sterling's wife and fellow-Fairwinds employee, Sandy Sterling, observed Sterling abusing Hecksher on school property, and that Sandy's knowledge of and tortious failure to report the abuse should have been imputed to Fairwinds. Hecksher also argued that Fairwinds was grossly negligent for failing to have a sexual abuse prevention policy in place and for not responding to red flags that Sterling posed a serious risk to Fairwinds students. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment, finding several instances where reasonable jurors could have found differently than did the Superior Court. The Supreme Court therefore concluded material issues of fact remained, specifically as to whether Sandy's knowledge and conduct could be imputed to Fairwinds, and whether Fairwinds was grossly negligent for failing to have any sexual abuse prevention and detection policies in place and for failing to act on red flags that Sterling posed a serious risk to female students. Accordingly, the grant of summary judgment was reversed and the case remanded for trial. View "Hecksher v. Fairwinds Baptist Church, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

McVey sued for injuries she sustained after a waitress dropped a tray on her foot. Memorial Hospital of Carbondale treated her. McVey settled the lawsuit for $7,500, then filed a petition to adjudicate liens. The hospital’s lien was $2,891.64. In addition to attorney fees, McVey allegedly incurred litigation costs of $846.66 in securing the settlement. The trial court entered an order recognizing that under the Health Care Services Lien Act (Act) (770 ILCS 23/10), no individual licensed category of health care professional or health care providers may receive more than one-third of the award or settlement, so that the hospital could recover no more than $2,500. The court acknowledged precedent holding, that in order to ensure that a plaintiff receives 30% of the judgment, the computation of the amount available to health care providers should not begin until costs associated with bringing the case and securing payment have been deducted, but refused to deduct attorney fees and costs before calculating the amount available to the hospital. The appellate court reversed and remanded. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, holding that hospitals are not required to contribute to the costs of litigation. View "McVey v. M.L.K. Enters., LLC" on Justia Law

In June 2008, Plaintiff brought an action in a federal district court alleging violations of her federal and state constitutional rights and asserting common law negligence claims. The district dismissed several of Plaintiff’s claims. On September 30, 2011, the court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Plaintiff’s remaining federal claims. Plaintiff appealed. Because Plaintiff failed to file her brief and appendix by an extended deadline, the Second Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal by mandate issued on August 28, 2012, effective July 10, 2012. On June 25, 2012, Plaintiff commenced the instant action in Supreme Court. Defendants moved to dismiss the state action as untimely, contending that the six-month tolling period provided by N.Y. C.P.L.R. 205(a) had already expired. Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that Plaintiff’s federal action terminated on September 30, 2011, thus rejecting Plaintiff’s contention that her federal action terminated with the Second Circuit’s dismissal of her appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, where an appeal is taken as of right, the prior action terminates for purposes of section 205(a) when the nondiscretionary appeal is “exhausted,” either by a determination on the merits or by dismissal of the appeal. View "Malay v. City of Syracuse" on Justia Law

Keith Justin Conley (Conley) was convicted of murder his girlfriend, Jessica Newsome, whom he fatally shot in the home of his father. At the time of the shooting, Conley’s father’s home was insured through a homeowner’s insurance policy issued by Kentucky Farm Bureau (Kentucky Farm). Jessica’s parents brought a wrongful death cause of action against Conley. Kentucky Farm intervened in the action seeking a declaration that the homeowner’s policy at issue did not provide coverage to Conley for the Newsomes’ claims. The trial court ruled that the homeowner’s insurance policy provided coverage for Conley’s acts. Kentucky Farm then filed a motion under Ky. R. Civ. P. 59.05 asking the court to alter or amend its order. The trial court denied the motion. Kentucky Farm subsequently filed its notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely, concluding that the Rule 59.05 motion failed to conform with Ky. R. Civ. P. 7.02, and therefore, the Rule 59.05 motion did not toll the thirty-day period in which notice was to be filed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Rule 59.05 motion, while failing to strictly comply with the requirements of Rule 7.02, was nevertheless timely, and therefore, the motion tolled the time for filing the notice of appeal. View "Ky. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Conley" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs’ car and a work-truck owned by Energy Corporation of America (ECA) were involved in a wreck that occurred in Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs filed a tort claim in Harrison County against ECA. The circuit court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for improper venue. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a bad faith claim in Harrison County against their insurer and joined ECA as a co-defendant, seeking tort damages for the wreck. ECA filed a motion to sever for improper joinder and dismiss for improper venue. The circuit court denied relief, concluding (1) joinder of ECA and Plaintiffs’ insurer was improper under W. Va. R. Civ. P. 20; and (2) Harrison County was a proper venue for ECA based on the “venue-giving defendant” principle. ECA petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court granted the writ as moulded, holding (1) the joinder of Plaintiffs’ insurer and ECA was improper because it failed to satisfy the requirements under Rule 20(a); and (2) once Plaintiffs’ insurer is properly severed from the claim against ECA, there will be no venue-giving defendant in this action, and therefore, Harrison County was not a proper venue for ECA. View "State ex rel. Energy Corp. of Am. v. Hon. John Lewis Marks" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant seeking a declaration that it had a superior lien on funds to which Defendant also claimed an entitlement. Plaintiff brought two counts against Defendant, one requesting a declaration that Plaintiff was entitled to the immediate release and receipt of all funds at issue and the other alleging conversion. Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and for failure to join an indispensable party. The Court of Chancery dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding (1) Plaintiff’s application for declaratory relief should be heard in superior court because that court has the power and ability to resolve a lien dispute and because Plaintiff has an adequate and complete remedy at law; and (2) Plaintiff’s second count for conversion asserts a legal right and implicates a legal remedy, and therefore, the Court of Chancery lacks subject matter jurisdiction to address it. View "The Bancorp Bank v. Cross & Simon, LLC" on Justia Law

After Nekole Bennett and her children suffered personal injuries during a home-invasion robbery, they filed this premises-liability action against their apartment complex (Highland Park) and the complex's manager (Sharon Sampson). The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants' failure to provide adequate security measures at Highland Park proximately caused the plaintiffs' injuries in the robbery. To support that claim, the plaintiffs designated John Tisdale as an expert in security measures. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the plaintiffs' expert testimony failed to establish a triable issue on proximate causation. The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment and affirmed the circuit judge's refusal to recuse. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to expand on the Court of Appeals' analysis on the summary-judgment issue, and to explain why the expert testimony created a triable issue. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and reversed the trial court judgment and remanded this case to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Bennett v. Highland Park Apartments, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Union Pacific Railway, and Stickle, alleging that failure to properly build and maintain railway bridges over the Cedar River caused or exacerbated the 2008 flood and that the decision to attempt to stabilize the bridges by weighing them down with railcars filled with ballast caused or exacerbated the flooding of their properties, either because bridges collapsed and effectively dammed the river and blocked drainage, or because railcars on bridges that did not collapse blocked the free flow of the river and diverted water into low-lying areas. Union Pacific filed Notice of Removal that asserted federal question jurisdiction and stated that attorneys for the co-defendants had no objection to removal, accompanied by a local rule certification that: “co-defendants have given their consent to the removal.” Stickle did not file notice of consent to removal until more than 30 days after Union Pacific was served. By that time, Plaintiffs had moved to remand, arguing that their claims were not completely preempted and that not all defendants had timely consented. The district court denied remand. The Eighth Circuit vacated, finding the consent adequate, but that the state claims were not completely preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, 49 U.S.C. 701. View "Griffioen v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry. Co." on Justia Law

In 2007, Clyde Snider, Jr. was hospitalized for a suspected myocardial infarction. He would later get surgery and be given a pacemaker. Following up on an unrelated issue, Snider's treating doctors found infection at the site of the pacemaker. The doctor who recommended implantation of the pacemaker was found to have rushed the decision to give Snider the pacemaker. "Except for the relatively minor complication of a hematoma, and the surgical scar after pacemaker extraction," a medical review panel found no evidence of any long term, major injury to Snider. Snider sued the treating doctor and his liability insurer for damages arising out of the doctor's alleged negligence in the implantation of the pacemaker. A jury later found that the doctor did not breach the appropriate standard of care in Snider's medical negligence action, which Snider appealed. Finding that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence and was not clearly wrong, the Supreme Court affirmed the verdict. View "Snider v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Former and current employees filed a class action lawsuit in state court against Gilster and other defendants, alleging lung impairment (or potential lung impairment) from exposure to butter-flavoring products, including diacetyl, used in Gilster’s microwave popcorn packaging plant in Jasper, Missouri. Defendants removed the action to federal court. Six weeks later, the employees dismissed all defendants except Gilster. The district court ordered a remand to state court based on the Class Action Fairness Act’s local-controversy exception, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(4), under which, a court is required to decline jurisdiction when “greater than two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed,” determined as of the date of the filing. The district court permitted discovery on state citizenship. For all of the potential class members, except the current employees, plaintiffs provided only last-known addresses, some 27 years old, and did not identify state citizenship. The court ultimately found that 41 percent of potential class members were Missouri citizens. The Eighth Circuit reversed. Because the employees did not meet their burden of proof that a CAFA exception applies, the court erred by resolving doubt in favor of the party seeking remand. View "Hood v. Gilster-Mary Lee Corp." on Justia Law