Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In 2015, Michael Shields, a mechanic for the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA), injured his left shoulder. The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation approved his claim for left shoulder strain. In 2017, Shields sought benefits for a related right shoulder injury, which the bureau denied. Shields then sued in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, and in May 2022, a jury found him entitled to benefits for the right shoulder injury. The RTA appealed, and the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on April 27, 2023.Following the appellate court's decision, Shields filed a motion on May 8, 2023, seeking $26,221 in appellate attorney fees or a remand to the trial court to determine the fees. The RTA opposed, arguing the motion was untimely and that Shields had waived the issue by not seeking fees earlier. The appellate court ruled in favor of Shields, allowing him to recover appellate attorney fees and remanded the case to the trial court to determine the amount.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the appellate court's decision. The court held that a worker who prevails at trial in a workers’ compensation action may request attorney fees after obtaining an appellate judgment on the merits. The court emphasized that the workers’ compensation statute should be liberally construed in favor of employees and found no statutory requirement for the timing of such a request. The court dismissed the RTA's arguments regarding the timing and jurisdiction of the fee request and did not address the issue of fee caps, as it was not ripe for review. View "Shields v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation" on Justia Law

Paul Prinkey Jr. was injured while working for Emerine’s Towing, Inc. on January 19, 2015. His workers' compensation claim was allowed for myocardial infarction, substantial aggravation of pre-existing coronary artery disease, and major depressive disorder. Prinkey filed his first application for permanent-total-disability (PTD) compensation on February 4, 2019, which was denied by the Industrial Commission of Ohio based on medical evaluations indicating he was capable of sedentary work. Prinkey filed a second application for PTD compensation on June 4, 2021, citing worsening symptoms.The Industrial Commission denied Prinkey’s second application, stating he failed to present evidence of new and changed circumstances as required by the amended R.C. 4123.58(G). The commission's staff hearing officer (SHO) found no jurisdiction to address the application due to the lack of new evidence. Prinkey sought a writ of mandamus from the Tenth District Court of Appeals, which returned the matter to the commission for further proceedings, finding the SHO's order lacked adequate explanation and evidence.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the Tenth District's decision. The court held that the SHO failed to comply with the requirements of State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm., which mandates that the commission must specifically state the evidence relied upon and briefly explain the reasoning for its decision. The court found that the SHO did not provide sufficient reasoning or cite specific evidence to support the conclusion that Prinkey failed to present new and changed circumstances. Consequently, the case was returned to the Industrial Commission for further proceedings. View "State ex rel. Prinkey v. Emerine's Towing, Inc." on Justia Law

Todd Halbur was terminated from his position as comptroller of the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division (ABD). Halbur claimed he was fired in retaliation for reporting to his supervisor, Stephen Larson, that ABD was violating Iowa law by exceeding the 50% markup on liquor sales and for refusing to engage in illegal acts related to a service contract with Beverage Merchandising, Inc. (BMI). Halbur filed a lawsuit against Larson, asserting a statutory claim for wrongful discharge under Iowa Code section 70A.28 and a common law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The district court submitted the statutory claim to a jury but dismissed the common law claim, ruling that the statutory claim was the exclusive remedy. The jury awarded Halbur $1 million, which was reduced due to a statutory cap on damages.The Iowa District Court for Polk County dismissed Halbur’s common law wrongful discharge claim, reasoning that the statutory claim under section 70A.28 provided a comprehensive remedy. The court also dismissed the statutory claims against the State of Iowa and ABD, allowing the claim to proceed only against Larson in his official capacity. Larson’s motion for summary judgment was initially granted in part but later reconsidered, allowing the case to proceed to trial. The jury found in favor of Halbur, awarding him damages.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case. Larson argued that Halbur’s internal complaints did not constitute protected disclosures under section 70A.28. However, the court found that Larson failed to preserve this issue for appeal by not raising it during trial through a motion for directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On cross-appeal, Halbur argued that his common law claim should not have been dismissed. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the statutory remedy under section 70A.28 was exclusive and comprehensive, precluding the need for a common law claim. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Halbur v. Larson" on Justia Law

Newton Jones, the President of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, was removed from office and expelled from the Union by the Union’s Executive Council after it was determined that he had misused Union funds. Jones challenged the disciplinary proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, arguing that the proceedings violated the Union Constitution and his due-process rights under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). He also claimed that the district court erred by not allowing him sufficient time to respond to the motion for summary judgment and by not permitting discovery.The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Vice Presidents who had acted against Jones, affirming their decision to remove him from office. The court ruled that the Executive Council’s decision was binding and entitled to full effect. Jones then appealed the district court’s summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s summary judgment. The appellate court held that the Executive Council did not violate the Union Constitution in removing Jones from office. The court deferred to the Union’s interpretation of its constitutional provisions, concluding that the Council’s interpretations were not unreasonable. The court also found that Jones had not shown any violation of the LMRDA or any error by the district court in conducting the summary-judgment proceedings.The Tenth Circuit concluded that Jones received a full and fair hearing under the LMRDA and that the district court did not err in setting an expedited briefing schedule or in not allowing additional time for discovery. The court affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment. View "International Brotherhood of Boilermakers v. Jones" on Justia Law

Four former employees of Litster Frost Injury Lawyers (LFIL) filed a lawsuit against LFIL and its former sole shareholder, Martha Frost, for unpaid wages and breach of an employment agreement. They claimed LFIL owed them compensation in the form of wages, bonuses, profit sharing, and other expenses incurred while employed. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of LFIL, concluding that the employees' claims were time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations under Idaho Code section 45-614 and that the employment agreement was an unenforceable "agreement to agree."The employees appealed, arguing that the district court erred in determining that the provisions of the employment agreement were not severable or enforceable and that the court should have supplied a "reasonable time" for performance. LFIL cross-appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying their request for attorney fees following summary judgment.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the employees' breach of contract claims because the employment agreement was unenforceable. The court found that the agreement's essential terms were too indefinite and subject to future negotiations. However, the court reversed the district court's decision regarding Sarah's reimbursement claim, finding that issues of material fact existed as to whether her claim fell within Idaho's Wage Claim Act. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on all other claims.The Supreme Court also reversed the district court's decision on attorney fees, holding that the district court did not apply the correct legal standard. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Attorney fees on appeal were awarded to LFIL for the time spent responding to certain claims, and costs were awarded to LFIL. View "Litster v. Litster Frost Injury Lawyers PLLC" on Justia Law

The case involves Patricia A. Heilman, the surviving spouse of Arthur J. Heilman, who died from an industrial accident. Patricia Heilman sought scheduled-loss compensation under Ohio law, claiming her husband had lost the use of both arms, both legs, sight in both eyes, and hearing in both ears before his death. The Industrial Commission of Ohio denied her request based on a nonexamining physician's report, which did not fully accept the findings of the examining physicians.The Tenth District Court of Appeals reviewed the case and granted a limited writ of mandamus. The court ordered the Industrial Commission to vacate its denial of scheduled-loss compensation and to re-evaluate whether Patricia Heilman had established her claims under the relevant statute. The court found that the Commission had improperly relied on the nonexamining physician's report, which did not comply with the requirements set forth in Wallace v. Industrial Commission.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the Tenth District's judgment. The court held that the Industrial Commission abused its discretion by relying solely on the nonexamining physician's report, which failed to accept the objective findings of the examining physicians. The Supreme Court clarified that while the Commission could not base its decision solely on the nonexamining physician's report, it could use the report as guidance in evaluating the remaining medical evidence. The court ordered the Commission to vacate its previous order and issue a new decision based on a proper evaluation of the evidence. View "State ex rel. Heilman v. Industrial Commission" on Justia Law

Cristin Dent filed a Title VII racial discrimination claim against her former employer, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. Dent received a notice of right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on April 5, 2023, giving her until July 5, 2023, to file her complaint. Her attorney attempted to file the complaint on July 4, 2023, but failed to complete the online submission process. The complaint was ultimately filed on July 10, 2023, five days late. Dent requested that the district court deem her complaint timely by equitably tolling the statutory period for filing.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted Charles Schwab’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that Dent’s complaint was time-barred. The court denied Dent’s request for equitable tolling, concluding that her attorney’s failure to follow the court’s instructions and local rules on submitting complaints did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting such relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, agreeing that equitable tolling is an extraordinary remedy and that Dent’s attorney’s mistake was merely “garden variety” neglect, not an extraordinary circumstance. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for equitable tolling and in granting the motion to dismiss. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Dent v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Marlon Quesada, a deputy sheriff with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, was not promoted to sergeant despite taking the sergeant's examination in 2017 and 2019, scoring in band two and band one, respectively. Quesada had a mixed employment record, including two suspensions for misconduct and a 2015 investigation that was terminated due to a statute of limitations. Quesada claimed the Department improperly considered this time-barred investigation during the promotion process, which he argued was illegal.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Quesada's petition for a writ of mandate, which sought to compel the Department to promote him and provide back pay and other damages. The trial court rejected Quesada's argument for a burden-shifting approach, similar to that used in discrimination cases, and found that Quesada did not establish that the Department's decision was illegal.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the standard approach to civil litigation applies, where the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the elements of their claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The court declined to adopt a burden-shifting approach, noting that Quesada's case did not involve discrimination based on race or membership in a historically oppressed group. The court also found substantial evidence supporting the Department's decision, including Quesada's mediocre performance evaluations and past misconduct. The court concluded that Quesada's policy arguments did not justify a departure from the standard legal approach. View "Quesada v. County of L.A." on Justia Law

Miko Thomas, an employee of JBS Green Bay, filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging racial discrimination. He claimed that his employer delayed his training for three years, denied his vacation requests while approving similar requests for others, and transferred him to a different shift despite knowing it caused childcare issues. Thomas argued these actions were discriminatory based on his color.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed Thomas's complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court found that the alleged events were not serious enough to be actionable under Title VII and that Thomas's complaint did not include all necessary elements to prove his case. After Thomas amended his complaint, the district court dismissed the suit outright, maintaining that the complaint lacked sufficient detail and did not meet the required legal standards.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and found the district court's dismissal to be mistaken. The appellate court held that the district court incorrectly required the complaint to allege significant or material injury, which is not necessary under Title VII as clarified by the Supreme Court in Muldrow v. St. Louis. The appellate court also noted that the district court improperly demanded that the complaint include every element of proof needed for summary judgment, contrary to the notice pleading standard established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and reaffirmed in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing it to move to the summary-judgment stage and potentially to trial. View "Thomas v. JBS Green Bay, Inc." on Justia Law

Julian Rodriguez, a former employee of Lawrence Equipment, Inc., filed a lawsuit alleging various wage-and-hour violations under the California Labor Code. Rodriguez claimed that Lawrence failed to pay for all hours worked, including overtime, did not provide adequate meal and rest breaks, issued inaccurate wage statements, and did not pay all due wages upon termination. He also sought civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Rodriguez had signed an arbitration agreement with Lawrence, which led to the arbitration of his non-PAGA claims.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County ordered arbitration for Rodriguez’s wage-and-hour claims and stayed the PAGA claim. The arbitrator ruled in favor of Lawrence, finding that Rodriguez failed to prove any of the alleged Labor Code violations. The trial court confirmed the arbitration award and entered judgment for Lawrence. Subsequently, Lawrence moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the arbitration award precluded Rodriguez from pursuing his PAGA claim due to lack of standing as an aggrieved employee. The trial court granted this motion and dismissed the PAGA claim.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the arbitration award, which found no Labor Code violations, precluded Rodriguez from establishing standing under PAGA. The court applied the doctrine of issue preclusion, determining that the issues litigated in arbitration were identical to those required to establish PAGA standing. Since Rodriguez could not prove any Labor Code violations, he lacked standing to pursue the PAGA claim. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment of dismissal. View "Rodriguez v. Lawrence Equipment, Inc." on Justia Law