Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Melissa Mandell-Brown filed a complaint against Novo Nordisk, Inc. and Zamaneh Zamanian, asserting 16 causes of action, including claims for discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Labor Code, as well as common law claims for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by a separate statement of 161 undisputed facts, attorney declarations, and witness declarations. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion or a separate statement.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment after plaintiff failed to file the required opposition or separate statement, despite being granted two continuances. The court found no genuine issues of material fact and concluded that the plaintiff could not prove the elements of her causes of action. Plaintiff appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(3), by granting the motion based on the plaintiff’s failure to file the requisite separate statement. The appellate court noted that the trial court had the discretion to grant the motion for summary judgment when the opposing party fails to comply with the requirement of a separate statement. Given the complexity of the case and the plaintiff's failure to submit any opposition or appear at the hearing, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Mandell-Brown v. Novo Nordisk Inc." on Justia Law

Rachel Moniz and Paola Correa filed separate lawsuits against Adecco USA, Inc. under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA), alleging violations of the Labor Code. Moniz and Adecco settled their case, but Correa challenged the fairness of the settlement. The trial court approved the revised settlement over Correa's objections and awarded attorney’s fees to Moniz’s counsel. Correa's request for a service award and attorney’s fees for her own work was largely denied. Correa appealed, arguing the trial court's analysis of the revised settlement was flawed and that her request for attorney’s fees and a service award should have been granted.The San Mateo County Superior Court overruled Adecco's demurrer in Moniz's case, while the San Francisco Superior Court sustained Adecco's demurrer in Correa's case. Correa's motion to intervene in Moniz's suit was denied, and her subsequent appeal was also denied. The trial court approved Moniz's settlement with Adecco, awarding Moniz a service award and attorney’s fees, but denied Correa’s requests. Correa's motions for a new trial and to vacate the judgment were denied, leading to her appeal.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. While the appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court decided Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., which disapproved of the reasoning in Moniz II regarding Correa’s standing. The Court of Appeal concluded that Correa and her counsel lacked standing to challenge the judgment based on the Supreme Court's decision in Turrieta. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed. View "Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The Santa Ana Police Officers Association (SAPOA) and certain anonymous City of Santa Ana police officers (Doe Officers) sued the City of Santa Ana, alleging wrongful disclosure of confidential personnel records, failure to investigate a complaint about the disclosure, and denial of a request for related communications. The first amended complaint included four causes of action: violation of Penal Code section 832.7 and Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045, negligence, failure to investigate under Penal Code sections 832.5 and 832.7, and violation of the Meyers-Milias Brown Act (MMBA).The Superior Court of Orange County sustained the City’s demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend, leading to the dismissal of the case. The court found that the Doe Officers could not proceed anonymously without statutory authority or court authorization. It also concluded that the SAPOA lacked standing and that there was no private right of action for the alleged violations of the Penal Code and Evidence Code sections cited.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the judgment as to the Doe Officers, agreeing they lacked authorization to proceed anonymously. It also affirmed the trial court’s decision regarding the first, second, and fourth causes of action, finding no private right of action for damages under the cited statutes and that the SAPOA failed to exhaust administrative remedies for the MMBA claim. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment concerning the third cause of action, holding that the SAPOA had standing to seek mandamus relief to compel the City to investigate the complaint and notify the SAPOA of the disposition, as required by Penal Code sections 832.5 and 832.7. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this cause of action. View "Santa Ana Police Officers Assn. v. City of Santa Ana" on Justia Law

Deidre Parker, a black woman, was employed as a Program Management Assistant by the Risk Management Agency (RMA) of the USDA starting in March 2011. She filed an EEOC complaint in 2013, which was settled in 2015. Parker alleged that after the settlement, she experienced race and gender discrimination, retaliation, constructive discharge, and a hostile work environment. Her duties diminished after a change in the timekeeping system, and she was tasked with cleaning out file cabinets. She requested additional work and development opportunities but did not act on them. Parker received two letters of counseling for disruptive conduct and filed EEOC complaints in 2017 and 2018, alleging discrimination and retaliation.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment in favor of the USDA on all counts. The court limited its review to events occurring after the 2015 settlement agreement, finding that Parker had waived claims arising before that date. The court found that Parker failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation under the McDonnell Douglas framework, as most of the conduct did not constitute an adverse employment action, and there was no evidence supporting an inference of discrimination. Her hostile work environment claims failed due to a lack of causal link between the USDA’s conduct and her race or gender, and her constructive discharge claim failed because she did not prove that her workplace was intolerable or that the USDA intended for her to quit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of Parker’s claims to conduct occurring after the settlement agreement. The court also found that Parker failed to demonstrate a causal nexus between the alleged adverse actions and her race or gender, and that her claims of hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation were unsupported by sufficient evidence. View "Parker v. United States" on Justia Law

Kurt Beathard, a football coach at Illinois State University (ISU), was terminated from his position as offensive coordinator after posting a handwritten message on his office door that read, “All Lives Matter to Our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ.” This occurred during a period of tension and unrest on the ISU campus following the death of George Floyd. Beathard alleges that his termination was due to this personal speech, which he claims is protected by the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois reviewed the case. The defendants, Larry Lyons and Brock Spack, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, stating that factual development was necessary before resolving the question of qualified immunity. The court found that Beathard had made a viable claim that his speech was personal and protected, but it was premature to engage in the Pickering balancing test at the pleading stage.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court had not made a definitive ruling on the qualified immunity defense but had instead postponed the decision pending further factual development. The Seventh Circuit emphasized that interlocutory orders, such as the denial of a motion to dismiss, are generally not immediately appealable unless they conclusively determine the issue of qualified immunity, which was not the case here. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of appellate jurisdiction. View "Rogers v. Byroad" on Justia Law

Gary Waetzig, a former employee of Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., filed a federal age-discrimination lawsuit against the company. He later submitted his claims for arbitration and voluntarily dismissed his federal lawsuit without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). After losing in arbitration, Waetzig sought to reopen his dismissed lawsuit and vacate the arbitration award, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) as the basis for reopening the case.The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado reopened the case, ruling that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice counts as a "final proceeding" under Rule 60(b) and that Waetzig made a mistake by dismissing his case rather than seeking a stay. The District Court also granted Waetzig's motion to vacate the arbitration award. Halliburton appealed, and the Tenth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, holding that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not count as a "final judgment, order, or proceeding" under Rule 60(b).The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that a case voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a) counts as a "final proceeding" under Rule 60(b). The Court reasoned that a voluntary dismissal is "final" because it terminates the case and aligns with the definitions and historical context of the term "final." The Court also concluded that a voluntary dismissal qualifies as a "proceeding" under Rule 60(b), encompassing all steps in an action's progression. The judgment of the Tenth Circuit was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Mark L. Sadler, a former employee of the United States Army, was suspended and then removed from his position for insubordination. Sadler claimed that these actions were retaliatory under the Whistleblower Protection Act and sought corrective action from the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board). He also requested sanctions against the government for the destruction of evidence. The Board denied both his motion for sanctions and his request for corrective action.The Merit Systems Protection Board initially dismissed Sadler’s first complaint, finding it did not sufficiently allege protected activity. For his second complaint, the Board acknowledged that Sadler engaged in protected whistleblower activity but concluded that the Army had shown by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same actions regardless of the protected activity. The Board also denied Sadler’s motion for sanctions, finding that the destruction of evidence was part of the Army’s ordinary procedures and did not warrant sanctions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Board’s decision. The court agreed that Sadler’s first complaint did not allege protected activity and that the Army had provided clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same actions absent the whistleblowing. The court also upheld the Board’s decision on the sanctions issue, agreeing that the destruction of evidence was part of routine procedures and did not meet the intent standard required for sanctions under Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. View "SADLER v. ARMY " on Justia Law

Samuel Murray, a motor-vehicle operator for the District of Columbia Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS), was wrongfully terminated after taking leave due to an injury sustained at work. In September 2020, DYRS was ordered to reinstate Mr. Murray and awarded him back-pay with benefits. Mr. Murray did not initially request interest on the back-pay. In February 2021, he petitioned the Office of Employee Appeals (OEA) to reopen his case for enforcement of the back-pay and benefits, which had not yet been provided, and for the first time sought accrued interest on the back-pay.The OEA Administrative Judge (AJ) ruled that OEA had the authority to award interest on back-pay and ordered DYRS to pay Mr. Murray prejudgment interest. DYRS sought review in the Superior Court, which reversed the AJ's decision, holding that the AJ did not have jurisdiction to grant interest on the back-pay award. The Superior Court reasoned that the AJ's jurisdiction was limited to correcting the record, ruling on attorney fees, or processing enforcement petitions, and Mr. Murray's request for prejudgment interest fell outside these parameters.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The court held that D.C. Code § 1-606.03(c) clearly precluded Mr. Murray's belated request for prejudgment interest, as it was made over three months after the back-pay award became final and did not fall within the AJ's limited post-award jurisdiction. The court also noted that it did not address whether OEA has the authority to award prejudgment interest when timely requested or whether post-judgment interest could be part of enforcing an award not promptly paid. View "Murray v. District of Columbia Dep't of Youth and Rehabilitation Services" on Justia Law

Kristin Casey, a former employee of D.R. Horton, Inc., filed a lawsuit against the company and one of its employees, Kris Hansen, alleging sexual harassment and other claims. D.R. Horton moved to compel arbitration based on an employment agreement that included an arbitration clause governed by California law. Casey opposed the motion, citing the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), which allows plaintiffs to invalidate arbitration agreements in cases involving sexual harassment. The trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the EFAA was inapplicable due to the choice-of-law provision in the employment agreement.The Contra Costa County Superior Court initially reviewed the case and granted the motion to compel arbitration, accepting Hansen's joinder. The court concluded that the choice-of-law provision in the employment agreement meant that California law, not the EFAA, applied. Casey then filed a petition for a writ of mandate to challenge this decision.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that the EFAA preempts state law attempts to compel arbitration in cases related to sexual harassment disputes. The court determined that the EFAA applies to the parties' transaction because it sufficiently involved interstate commerce. The court also concluded that the EFAA's rule of unenforceability of arbitration agreements in sexual harassment cases preempts the state law and that parties cannot contract around the EFAA through a choice-of-law provision. Consequently, the court granted Casey's petition and directed the trial court to vacate its order compelling arbitration and to enter a new order denying the motion. View "Casey v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Prestige Home Care Agency, operated by Nursing Home Care Management Inc., did not compensate its employees for travel time between clients' homes. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) sued Prestige for this and other violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The District Court found Prestige's actions to be willful violations of the FLSA and granted summary judgment in favor of the DOL. Prestige appealed the summary judgment, the exclusion of its expert witness, and the denial of its motion for sanctions against the DOL.The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania excluded Prestige’s expert witness, denied Prestige’s motion for sanctions, and granted summary judgment for the DOL on all claims. The court found that Prestige willfully violated the FLSA by not compensating for travel time, failing to pay for short breaks, improperly compensating overtime, and not keeping accurate records.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that travel time between job sites during the workday is compensable under the FLSA. It affirmed the District Court’s finding that Prestige violated the FLSA’s recordkeeping requirements and acted willfully in its violations, extending the statute of limitations to three years. The court also upheld the District Court’s calculation of back wages and liquidated damages, finding the DOL’s estimates sufficient given Prestige’s inadequate records.The Third Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s exclusion of Prestige’s expert witness, who made several legal errors in his report. The court also upheld the denial of sanctions against the DOL, as the documents in question were already in Prestige’s possession and had little impact on the case. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment in all respects. View "Secretary United States Department of Labor v. Nursing Home Care Management Inc." on Justia Law