Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, an adjunct professor of economics at SUNY Albany, alleged that his failure to advance within his department to his colleagues’ unfavorable view of the methodology he employs in his scholarship. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendants, two of Plaintiff’s colleagues who were involved in the hiring decisions at issue. Plaintiff asserted three causes of action: (1) a claim for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 ; (2) a claim pursuant to Section 1983 for injunctive relief against SUNY Albany President in the form of a court order to “prevent ongoing discrimination against Keynesian economists” in violation of the First Amendment; and (3) an age discrimination claim under New York State’s Human Rights Law. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court explained that while it disagrees with much of the district court’s reasoning, it nonetheless agrees with its ultimate disposition. The court held that Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), does not apply to speech related to academic scholarship or teaching and that Plaintiff’s speech addressed matters of public concern, but that Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim nonetheless fails because under Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968), a public university’s interest in deciding for itself what skills, expertise, and academic perspectives it wishes to prioritize in its hiring and staffing decisions outweighs Plaintiff's asserted interest in competing for academic positions unencumbered by university decisionmakers’ assessment of his academic speech. View "Heim v. Daniel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court declined to issue a writ of prohibition sought by Youngstown Civil Service Commission, the City of Youngstown and Youngstown Mayor Jamael Tito Brown (collectively, Youngstown) to prevent Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas Judge Maureen Sweeney from exercising jurisdiction over an administrative appeal commenced by Michael Cox and to require her to vacate all orders issued in the appeal, holding that Youngstown was not entitled to the writ.Youngstown commenced this action seeking a writ of prohibition prohibiting Judge Sweeney from exercising any judicial authority over the underlying action and vacating all orders and journal entires issued in that case. As grounds for the writ, Youngstown argued that Judge Sweeney patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction over it because the pending underlying action was an untimely administrative appeal. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Judge Sweeney did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction over the matter at issue. View "State ex rel. Youngstown Civil Service Commission v. Sweeney" on Justia Law

Piplack and Taylor are lead plaintiffs in Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) (Labor Code 2698) representative actions in Orange and Los Angeles Counties against In-N-Out. Upon learning of settlement negotiations in a subsequent, overlapping PAGA action brought by Accurso against In-N-Out in Sonoma County, Piplack and Taylor filed a proposed complaint in intervention in the Sonoma County action, and moved to intervene under Code of Civil Procedure section 387 and 2 for a stay. The trial court denied the motions.The court of appeal vacated. Non-party PAGA claimants who seek to intervene in overlapping PAGA cases must have a “significantly protectable interest” that meets the threshold requirements of section 387. A personal interest is not required. The court upheld the denial of mandatory intervention; although Piplack and Taylor have significantly protectable interests, they failed to prove inadequate representation or potential impairment of their protectable interests. The court remanded the issue of permissive intervention for a “discretionary weighing of whether Piplack and Taylor propose to add anything to this case, the importance of which outweighs any objections Accurso and In-N-Out may have to the court hearing it.” View "Accurso v. In-N-Out Burgers" on Justia Law

LaCour, a former Marshalls employee, filed suit under the Labor Code’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) (Labor Code 2698) in January 2021. Marshalls argued that LaCour, having left Marshalls in May 2019, had only a year and 65 days to bring a claim and missed that deadline. Marshalls also argued that all allegations of violations pre-dating November 17, 2020, must be stricken because PAGA claims against Marshalls through that date were released in the settlement of an earlier class and PAGA action (Rodriguez).The court held that California Rules of Court emergency rule 9, put into effect during the pandemic, validly extended the limitations period by six months and that LaCour could pursue claims for violations occurring after the Rodriguez settlement's effective date. The court rejected LaCour’s argument that the Rodriguez plaintiff had no authority to settle claims encompassed by LaCour’s notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA); the Rodriguez LWDA notice letter listed several Labor Code provisions, including section 2802—which provided the legal basis for LaCour’s PAGA claims, even though, factually, the notices alleged different policies. The court then dismissed because LaCour was not a Marshalls's employee after November 17, 2019, and was not an “aggrieved employee” under PAGA and had no standing to sue.The court of appeal vacated. LaCour’s PAGA complaint was timely filed but the trial court erred in giving claim preclusive effect to a federal court judgment in a prior PAGA case. View "LaCour v. Marshalls of California, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was placed on unpaid administrative leave and then terminated from her employment with defendant Sequoia Union Elementary School District (the School District) after refusing to either provide verification of her COVID-19 vaccination status or undergo weekly testing as required by a then-operative order of the State Public Health Officer.Plaintiff brought suit under the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act against defendants the School District; Sequoia Union Elementary School (the School); and the School principal and superintendent, alleging (1) discrimination due to her refusal to authorize release of her medical information and (2) unauthorized use of her medical information.The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend, finding each claim failed as a matter of law due to certain statutory exceptions.Without any factual allegations that defendants received any “medical information,” such as medical records, a medical certification, or other information in “electronic or physical form... derived from a provider of health care” (section 56.05, subd.(i)), the Fifth Appellate District found that the complaint fails to state a cause of action for unauthorized use of such information under section 56.20(c). View "Rossi v. Sequoia Union Elementary School" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment on his claims that his former employer, ADESA Missouri, LLC (ADESA), discriminated against and retaliated against him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).   The Eighth Circuit reversed. The court concluded that Plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether ADESA’s reasons for terminating him were pretext for disability discrimination and retaliation. The court agreed with Plaintiff’s assertion that a reasonable jury could determine that the company’s VP made the decision to terminate Plaintiff  because of his medical restriction and only retroactively claimed a performance-based concern after HR advised her that terminating an employee due to his disability could be “an issue.” The evidence shows that the VP sent an email to HR about an employee with a “medical restriction” who had been “identified” for termination, asking if this could be “an issue.” Only after she learned that it could be a problem did the VP respond with specific criticisms of his performance. ADESA argues that because Plaintiff does not dispute he was underperforming compared to his peers, there can be no pretext. But neither the sales director nor the VP was able to say when they took these performance assessments into consideration. Thus, the court concluded that Plaintiff has raised genuine doubt as to ADESA’s proffered reasons for his termination. View "Roby Anderson v. KAR Global" on Justia Law

In this collective action, a group of 2,519 EMTs and paramedics allege that their employer, the City of New York, willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by requiring them to perform work before and after their shifts without paying them for that work unless the plaintiffs specifically requested overtime compensation from the City. The district entered a $17.78 million judgment against the City. The City appealed, raising four arguments: (1) the jury’s liability verdict cannot stand because plaintiffs failed to request overtime pay for the work at issue; (2) the jury’s willfulness finding was not supported by the evidence; (3) due to an erroneous instruction, the jury failed to make a necessary factual finding regarding the calculation of damages; and (4) the district court incorrectly forbade the jury from considering whether one component of the plaintiffs’ post-shift work was de minimis and therefore noncompensable. The City accordingly asked that the court reverse the jury’s verdict or remand for a new trial on damages.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court explained that here, each factor weighs against deeming plaintiffs’ post-shift work de minimis. First, post-shift work was very easy to record: CityTime already does, recording to the minute each post-shift sliver an EMT or paramedic spends at the station. Second, the court explained that the size of the claim favors plaintiffs. The City focuses exclusively on how much time the claimed work takes per day, but the proper inquiry is the amount of time claimed “in the aggregate.” Finally, plaintiffs’ post-shift work occurred regularly—the tasks had to be performed every day. View "Perry v. City of New York" on Justia Law

North Coast Village Condominium Association (the Association) filed a workplace violence restraining order in support of its board president, Neil Anderson, and 46 other employees and board members seeking to restrain resident, defendant-appellant Nancy Phillips. At the conclusion of a three-day hearing, the trial court denied the Association’s request. It then sua sponte and absent a request to amend the pleadings by either party, awarded Anderson a civil harassment restraining order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 against Phillips “in the interest of judicial efficiency and conforming pleadings to proof.” In so doing, it impliedly amended the pleadings to add Anderson as a party. Phillips appealed, requesting that the Court of Appeal reverse the order granting the civil harassment restraining order and enter judgment dismissing all restraining orders with prejudice. The Association filed a cross-appeal seeking reversal of the order denying the workplace violence restraining order. It also requested that the Court reverse and remand with instructions to enter a restraining order that included stay-away orders. The Court concluded the trial court abused its discretion by sua sponte amending the cause of action and petitioning party without adequate notice. Regarding the cross-appeal, the Court further concluded the trial court erred in interpreting and applying section 527.8. The order was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "North Coast Village Condominium Assn. v. Phillips" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant appealed from a district court order granting summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees on his claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court erroneously held that he lacks RICO standing to sue for his lost earnings because those losses flowed from, or were derivative of, an antecedent personal injury.   The Second Circuit vacated and remanded. The court explained that RICO’s civil-action provision, 18 U.S.C. Section 1964(c), authorizes a plaintiff to sue for injuries to “business or property.” While that language implies that a plaintiff cannot sue for personal injuries, that negative implication does not bar a plaintiff from suing for injuries to business or property simply because a personal injury was antecedent to those injuries. The court explained that it is simply wrong to suggest that the antecedent-personal-injury bar is necessary to ensure “genuine limitations” in Section 1964(c), or to give restrictive significance to Congress’s implicit intent to exclude some class of injuries by the phrase “business or property”’ when it enacted RICO. View "Horn v. Medical Marijuana, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff painted two large murals directly onto the walls inside a building on the campus of Defendant-Appellee Vermont Law School, Inc. The work stirred controversy, which eventually prompted the law school to erect a wall of acoustic panels around the murals to permanently conceal them from public view. Kerson brought suit against the law school, alleging that obscuring his work behind a permanent barrier violated his rights under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (“VARA”), which creates a cause of action for artists to prevent the modification and, in certain instances, destruction of works of visual art.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court held that merely ensconcing a work of art behind a barrier neither modifies nor destroys the work, as contemplated by VARA, and thus does not implicate VARA’s protections. The court explained that this case presents weighty concerns that pin an artist’s moral right to maintain the integrity of an artwork against a private entity’s control over the art in its possession. On the facts presented here, the court resolved this tension by hewing to the statutory text, which reflects Congress’s conscientious balancing of the competing interests at stake.  Because mere concealment of the Murals neither “modifies” nor “destroys” them, the Law School has not violated any of VARA’s prohibitions. As such, VARA does not entitle Plaintiff to an order directing the Law School to take the barrier down and continue to display the Murals. View "Kerson v. Vermont Law School, Inc." on Justia Law