Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A group of current and former employees of Professional Transportation, Inc. filed a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 2014, alleging overtime and minimum-wage violations. The district court conditionally certified the collective action, and approximately 3,500 workers opted in. However, the court later decertified the collective action, deeming it overbroad, and the suit was abandoned without an appeal. Subsequently, a second collective action was filed in a different district court on behalf of over 1,400 workers, including a new claim regarding the company's commute-time adjustment formula. This case was transferred to the Southern District of Indiana, which conditionally certified a collective action on the commute-time claim but later decertified it due to the formula's inconsistent application across locations.The Southern District of Indiana severed the claims, leaving Joseph Miller as the sole plaintiff, and determined that the statute of limitations barred Miller's claim. The plaintiffs' lawyers filed a notice of appeal. However, the main issue on appeal was the lack of an appellant, as the named plaintiffs did not file written consents to join the suit as required by 29 U.S.C. §216(b). The court found that the consents from the earlier suit could not be recycled for the new case, and the forms authorizing counsel to represent the plaintiffs were not sufficient consents to join the lawsuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction, as the plaintiffs' lawyers prosecuted the appeal on behalf of individuals who were not parties to the case. The court emphasized that without proper written consents, the named plaintiffs were not parties and could not appeal. The court also noted that the district court's ruling on the statute of limitations for Miller's claim was not adequately contested on appeal. View "Ghafoor v. Professional Transportation, Inc." on Justia Law

In March 2020, Eva Osborne sued Pleasanton Automotive Company, LOP Automotive Company LP, HAG Automotive Investments LP, and Bob Slap, alleging workplace misconduct including discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and wage violations. Osborne, who worked as Slap’s executive assistant, claimed Slap required her to perform personal tasks without proper compensation. In response, Slap filed a cross-complaint against Osborne in August 2022, alleging libel, slander, and other claims based on statements Osborne made in a letter to HAG’s HR director.The Alameda Superior Court granted Osborne’s special motion to strike Slap’s cross-complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, concluding that Osborne’s statements were protected activity made in anticipation of litigation and were privileged under Civil Code section 47. The court found that Slap could not show his claims had minimal merit because the statements were privileged and he failed to demonstrate malice.The California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that Osborne’s statements were protected under the anti-SLAPP statute and that the litigation privilege barred Slap’s claims. The court found that Osborne’s HR letter was sent in good faith contemplation of litigation, supported by her retention of counsel and subsequent legal actions. The court did not need to address Osborne’s alternative arguments regarding conditional privilege and malice, as the litigation privilege alone was sufficient to affirm the trial court’s ruling. View "Osborne v. Pleasanton Automotive Co., LP" on Justia Law

Appellant Yvonne Gant sued The Lynne Experience LTD (TLE) and Giant Foods, LLC (Giant) for negligence after allegedly being struck and injured by a golf cart operated by a TLE employee. Gant claimed that TLE and Giant failed to properly train and supervise their employees, leading to her injuries. TLE moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the District of Columbia’s Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) provided Gant’s exclusive remedy, thus removing the court’s jurisdiction over the matter. The Superior Court agreed, dismissing Gant’s claims against TLE with prejudice, and later granted summary judgment in favor of Giant, finding no employer-employee relationship that could support Gant’s negligence claim.The Superior Court determined that the WCA provided Gant’s exclusive remedy and that the District of Columbia Department of Employee Services (DOES) had primary jurisdiction over her claims. The court dismissed Gant’s claims against TLE with prejudice, reasoning that any claim under the WCA would be time-barred. Subsequently, the court granted summary judgment for Giant, based on undisputed evidence that Giant was merely a sponsor of the event and had no role in managing or supervising the staff involved.On appeal, Gant argued that TLE failed to secure payment of compensation as required by the WCA and that she should be allowed to maintain her civil action. Alternatively, she requested a stay to present her claim to DOES. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals agreed that the WCA appeared to provide Gant’s exclusive remedy but held that the Superior Court should have dismissed her claim without prejudice. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Giant, noting that Gant failed to present any arguments against it on appeal.The main holding by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals was that the Superior Court should have dismissed Gant’s claim against TLE without prejudice, allowing her the opportunity to pursue her claim with DOES. The court affirmed the summary judgment for Giant, as there was no evidence to support an employer-employee relationship necessary for Gant’s negligence claim. View "Gant v. The Lynne Experience, LTD" on Justia Law

In this case, the petitioners sought to disqualify a trial court judge based on alleged bias and prejudice. The key facts revolve around a wage-and-hour class action lawsuit initiated by the real parties in interest against the petitioners, their employer. During the litigation, the trial judge made comments suggesting the petitioners were attempting to evade liability through corporate restructuring. These comments were cited by the petitioners as evidence of bias.The Fresno County Superior Court judge struck the petitioners' statement of disqualification as untimely. The petitioners then sought writ review in the Court of Appeal, which held that the nonwaiver provision of section 170.3(b)(2) precluded the application of the timeliness requirement in section 170.3(c)(1) when a party alleges judicial bias or prejudice. The Court of Appeal reasoned that the nonwaiver provision should be interpreted to prohibit all forms of waiver, including implied waiver due to untimeliness.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and disagreed with the Court of Appeal's interpretation. The Supreme Court held that the nonwaiver provision of section 170.3(b)(2) applies only to judicial self-disqualification and does not affect the timeliness requirement for party-initiated disqualification attempts under section 170.3(c)(1). The Court emphasized that the statutory text, structure, legislative history, and case law support this interpretation. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment and remanded the case for the lower court to determine whether the petitioners' statement of disqualification was filed in a timely manner. View "North Am. Title Co. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Terrence Richard, a brakeman for Union Pacific Railroad Company, fell from a train and broke his leg while working. He sued Union Pacific for negligence under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). Richard claimed that the locomotive engineer’s mishandling of the train caused a surge that led to his fall. The trial court excluded the testimony of Richard’s expert, Richard Hess, a retired Union Pacific engineer, who would have testified that the engineer’s actions caused the surge. The jury found in favor of Union Pacific, concluding the company was not negligent.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Union Pacific’s motion in limine to exclude Hess’s testimony, reasoning that Hess lacked the necessary qualifications and expertise. Hess had intended to testify that the delay between releasing the train brakes and engaging the throttle caused excessive slack action, leading to a surge at the rear of the train where Richard was working. The trial court’s exclusion of this testimony left Richard without an expert to support his claim of negligent train handling.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court erred in excluding Hess’s testimony. The appellate court found that Hess’s extensive experience as a locomotive engineer qualified him to testify about the train handling practices and the potential dangers of the engineer’s actions. The exclusion of Hess’s testimony was deemed prejudicial because it deprived Richard of critical expert evidence to support his negligence claim. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment for Union Pacific and remanded the matter for a new trial. View "Richard v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

Eric Gilbert filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, listing his interest in retirement accounts worth approximately $1.7 million. The issue was whether these accounts could be accessed by creditors due to alleged violations of federal law governing retirement plans. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the accounts were protected from creditors, and the District Court affirmed this decision.The Bankruptcy Court dismissed the trustee John McDonnell's complaint, which sought to include the retirement accounts in the bankruptcy estate, arguing that the accounts violated ERISA and the IRC. The court found that the accounts were excluded from the estate under § 541(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, which protects interests in trusts with enforceable anti-alienation provisions under applicable nonbankruptcy law. The District Court upheld this ruling, agreeing that ERISA's anti-alienation provision applied regardless of the alleged violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the retirement accounts were excluded from the bankruptcy estate under § 541(c)(2) because ERISA's anti-alienation provision was enforceable, even if the accounts did not comply with ERISA and the IRC. The court also dismissed McDonnell's claims regarding preferential transfers and fraudulent conveyances, as the transactions in question did not involve Gilbert parting with his property. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the Bankruptcy Court's decisions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, shorten the time for briefing, and strike certain items from the appellate record. View "In re: Gilbert" on Justia Law

Blake Wentworth, a former professor at the University of California, Berkeley, sued the Regents of the University of California, alleging violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Information Practices Act (IPA). Wentworth claimed that the Regents failed to engage in the interactive process, provide reasonable accommodations, and invaded his privacy by leaking information about student complaints and his disability accommodations to the media.The Alameda County Superior Court granted summary adjudication in favor of the Regents on three of Wentworth’s causes of action under FEHA and IPA, denied his motion to compel discovery responses, and denied his request for a retrial on a cause of action for which the jury left the verdict form blank. The court also denied Wentworth’s post-judgment request for attorney’s fees and costs.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the summary adjudication on the claims for failure to engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations, finding that the Regents had offered reasonable accommodations and engaged in the interactive process in good faith. However, the court reversed the summary adjudication of the invasion of privacy cause of action, finding that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether the Regents violated the IPA by leaking a letter about student complaints and disclosing information about Wentworth’s disability accommodation.The court also reversed the trial court’s denial of Wentworth’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs, remanding for further proceedings to determine whether Wentworth was the prevailing party under the IPA and whether he was entitled to fees under the catalyst theory. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Wentworth’s motion for a retrial on the personnel file cause of action, finding that Wentworth had forfeited his right to object to the verdict form by failing to raise the issue before the jury was discharged. View "Wentworth v. UC Regents" on Justia Law

Two employees of a publicly traded company raised concerns internally that the company had overstated its earnings by not accounting for slower-than-expected drilling speeds. Subsequently, an article in The Wall Street Journal reported similar allegations, and within three months, the company terminated both employees. The employees then filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, claiming their termination violated whistleblower protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). An administrative proceeding resulted in a preliminary order for their reinstatement, which the company ignored.The employees sought to enforce the reinstatement order in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The District Court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, interpreting the relevant statute as not granting it the power to enforce the preliminary order. The employees appealed this decision.While the appeal was pending, the employees chose to abandon the administrative process and filed a separate civil action in federal court. Consequently, the administrative proceedings were terminated. The company then moved to dismiss the appeal on mootness grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the employees' request to enforce the preliminary reinstatement order no longer satisfied the redressability requirement for Article III standing. The preliminary order was extinguished with the dismissal of the administrative proceedings, and a federal court cannot enforce a non-existent order. Therefore, the employees lost Article III standing during the litigation, and no exception to mootness applied. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it on mootness grounds. View "Gulden v. Exxon Mobil Corp" on Justia Law

In this labor dispute, several employees sued their employer, a steel manufacturer, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Alabama common law. They claimed the company failed to pay wages for all hours worked, improperly calculated overtime, and delayed overtime payments. The plaintiffs sought relief for themselves and similarly situated employees.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama ordered the defendant to produce key time and pay records multiple times over two years. The defendant repeatedly failed to comply, offering various excuses and blaming its third-party payroll processor, ADP. The court eventually issued a default judgment against the defendant due to its continuous noncompliance and misrepresentations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to issue a default judgment, finding that the defendant's conduct warranted such a severe sanction. The appellate court also upheld the district court's denial of the defendant's motion to reconsider the sanctions, noting that the district court had the discretion to revisit its interlocutory orders but did not abuse that discretion in this case.The appellate court also affirmed the district court's determination that the plaintiffs' claims regarding workweek calculations and bonus payments were well-pleaded. However, the appellate court vacated and remanded the district court's calculation of damages, instructing the lower court to provide a more thorough explanation of its reasoning regarding the statute of limitations defense. View "Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC" on Justia Law

Ephriam Rodriquez, a bus operator, was terminated by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) after accumulating excessive negative attendance points under his union’s Collective Bargaining Agreement. His final absence on June 8, 2018, was due to a migraine headache. Following an informal hearing on June 26, where his discharge was recommended, Rodriquez applied for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and sought medical documentation to support his claim. Despite this, SEPTA held a formal hearing and approved his termination.Rodriquez filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging FMLA retaliation and interference. The jury found in favor of Rodriquez on the interference claim, awarding him $20,000 in economic damages, but ruled in favor of SEPTA on the retaliation claim. SEPTA then moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that Rodriquez did not have a “serious health condition” under the FMLA at the time of his absence. The District Court granted SEPTA’s motion, leading to Rodriquez’s appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision de novo. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, holding that Rodriquez failed to demonstrate that his migraines constituted a “chronic serious health condition” as defined by the FMLA. Specifically, Rodriquez did not provide evidence of periodic visits to a healthcare provider for his migraines before his termination, which is a requirement under the FMLA regulations. The court concluded that there was no legally sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Rodriquez had a qualifying serious health condition at the time of his June 8 absence. View "Rodriquez v. SEPTA" on Justia Law