Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In March 2020, Jose Gonzalez visited a Walgreens store in Austin, Texas. An unidentified customer had clogged the toilet in the men's restroom and was given a plunger by a Walgreens employee to fix it. While the customer was attempting to unclog the toilet, Gonzalez entered the restroom and slipped on water that had accumulated on the floor. Gonzalez sued Walgreens for his injuries.The case was initially filed in Texas state court but was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas based on diversity jurisdiction. Gonzalez asserted a theory of vicarious liability and a claim for premises liability against Walgreens. The district court dismissed the vicarious liability theory and denied Walgreens's motion for summary judgment on the premises liability claim. After Gonzalez presented his case at trial, Walgreens moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), which the district court granted, finding that Walgreens had no actual or constructive knowledge of the wet floor. Gonzalez's motion for a new trial was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's JMOL, holding that no reasonable jury could find that Walgreens had actual or constructive knowledge of the wet floor. The court found that Gonzalez failed to provide sufficient evidence that Walgreens knew or should have known about the hazardous condition. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Gonzalez's vicarious liability theory, stating that the allegations constituted a premises liability claim, not a basis for vicarious liability. The court concluded that Walgreens did not have a policy or practice that it knew routinely created an unreasonable risk of harm, distinguishing this case from others where such knowledge was established. View "Gonzalez v. Walgreen" on Justia Law

A student, E.I., attended El Segundo Middle School during the 2017-2018 school year and experienced bullying from classmates, particularly Skylar. Despite E.I. and her parents repeatedly reporting the bullying to school officials, including the principal and counselor, the school failed to take effective action. The bullying included verbal harassment, social media abuse, and physical aggression, which led E.I. to self-harm and develop PTSD and depression. The school’s anti-bullying policies were not adequately followed by the staff.The case was initially reviewed by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, where a jury found the El Segundo Unified School District negligent and awarded E.I. $1 million in damages. The District moved for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, both of which were denied by the court.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The District argued several points on appeal, including errors in allowing reliance on certain Education Code provisions, claims of immunity under Government Code section 820.2, insufficient evidence of causation, improper consideration of a negligent training and supervision theory, admission of expert testimony, and attorney misconduct during closing arguments. The appellate court found that many of the District’s arguments were either waived or lacked merit. The court held that the District was not immune from liability under Government Code section 820.2, as the actions in question were operational rather than policy decisions. The court also found substantial evidence supporting the jury’s causation finding and determined that any potential errors were not prejudicial. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of E.I. View "E.I. v. El Segundo Unified School Dist." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Rhonda Lucas, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Peter Warhol and Progressive Direct Insurance Company following a car accident. Lucas struggled to serve Warhol, who had no fixed address and may have been homeless. Despite various efforts, including hiring a private investigator and attempting service through the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT), Warhol remained unserved eleven months after the lawsuit was filed. The district court eventually allowed Lucas to serve Warhol by serving an attorney hired by Warhol’s liability insurance carrier.The Iowa District Court for Polk County denied Warhol’s motion to dismiss for lack of timely service, finding good cause to extend the time for service due to the difficulty in locating Warhol. The court also permitted alternative service on the attorney. Warhol appealed, and the Iowa Supreme Court granted interlocutory review. While the appeal was pending, Lucas personally served Warhol.The Iowa Supreme Court addressed three issues: whether the district court should have dismissed the case for untimely service, whether the district court erred in permitting service on the attorney, and the effect of the personal service during the interlocutory review. The court held that the district court was correct in finding good cause to extend the time for service due to Lucas’s diligent efforts and Warhol’s homelessness. However, the court found that serving the attorney did not satisfy due process requirements, as there was no evidence of contact between Warhol and the attorney. The court concluded that the personal service on Warhol during the interlocutory review should be treated as timely.The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s refusal to dismiss the case, reversed the order permitting service on the attorney, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Lucas v. Warhol" on Justia Law

Casey Cotton rear-ended Caleb Crabtree, causing significant injuries. Cotton, insured by Allstate, faced potential liability exceeding his policy limit. Allstate allegedly refused to settle with Crabtree and failed to inform Cotton of the settlement negotiations or his potential liability, giving Cotton a potential bad-faith claim against Allstate. The Crabtrees sued Cotton, who declared bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court allowed the personal-injury action to proceed, resulting in a $4 million judgment for the Crabtrees, making them judgment creditors in the bankruptcy proceeding. Cotton’s bad-faith claim was classified as an asset of the bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy court allowed the Crabtrees to purchase Cotton’s bad-faith claim for $10,000, which they financed through Court Properties, Inc.The Crabtrees sued Allstate, asserting Cotton’s bad-faith claim. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the assignments of Cotton’s claim to Court Properties and then to the Crabtrees were champertous and void under Mississippi law. Consequently, the court found that the Crabtrees lacked Article III standing as they had not suffered any injury from Allstate.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court certified a question to the Supreme Court of Mississippi regarding the validity of the assignments under Mississippi’s champerty statute. The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that the statute prohibits a disinterested third party engaged by a bankruptcy creditor from purchasing a cause of action from a debtor’s estate. Based on this ruling, the Fifth Circuit held that the assignment of Cotton’s claim to Court Properties was void, and thus, the Crabtrees did not possess Cotton’s bad-faith claim. Therefore, the Crabtrees lacked standing to sue Allstate, and the district court’s dismissal was affirmed. View "Crabtree v. Allstate Property" on Justia Law

In October 2017, the FBI mistakenly raided the home of Hilliard Toi Cliatt, Curtrina Martin, and her 7-year-old son in suburban Atlanta, instead of the intended gang hideout. The error occurred due to Special Agent Guerra's reliance on a personal GPS device and the team's failure to notice the correct street sign and house number. The raid resulted in personal injuries and property damage. The plaintiffs sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for the officers' negligent and intentional actions.The district court granted summary judgment to the government, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The Eleventh Circuit applied a unique approach to FTCA claims, holding that the law enforcement proviso in §2680(h) overrides all exceptions, including the discretionary-function exception, allowing intentional-tort claims to proceed without further analysis. The court also allowed the government to assert a Supremacy Clause defense, which it found valid, leading to summary judgment for the United States.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the law enforcement proviso in §2680(h) overrides only the intentional-tort exception, not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions in §2680. The Court also held that the Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in FTCA suits. The case was vacated and remanded to the Eleventh Circuit to reconsider whether the discretionary-function exception bars the plaintiffs' claims and to assess liability under Georgia state law without reference to a Supremacy Clause defense. View "Martin v. United States" on Justia Law

Alonzo McClanahan, a former employee of DPR Construction, claimed workers' compensation benefits for an injury to his right shoulder that he alleged occurred on July 25, 2017, while moving heavy materials at work. DPR's claims administrator denied the claim, and McClanahan sought adjudication from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). During the trial, McClanahan testified about the injury, but DPR presented evidence and testimony from employees that contradicted his account. Medical evaluations were conducted by several doctors, including Dr. McGahan, who supported McClanahan's claim of an industrial injury.The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) ruled in favor of McClanahan, finding his testimony credible and supported by medical evidence. DPR filed a petition for reconsideration, which the WCJ recommended denying. The WCAB granted the petition for further review but ultimately affirmed the WCJ's decision in a two-to-one decision, despite acknowledging that the Hanley reports, which were not listed in the pretrial conference statement, were admitted in error. The dissenting board member believed the error warranted a return to the trial level for correction.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the WCAB did not err in its credibility determination under section 5313, as the WCJ provided sufficient reasons for finding McClanahan credible. However, the court agreed with DPR that the admission of the Hanley reports, which were not listed in the pretrial conference statement, violated section 5502. The court held that this error was not subject to harmless error analysis and annulled the WCAB's decision, remanding the case for reconsideration without reference to the Hanley reports. View "DPR Construction v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board" on Justia Law

Ashley Hushen and Alexandra Weary, along with their mothers, reported allegations of sexual harassment by a classmate, Benjamin Gonzales, to their high school administrators. The school conducted a Title IX investigation, resulting in Benjamin's three-day suspension and subsequent juvenile charges for unlawful sexual contact. Benjamin was acquitted of all charges, and the school reopened the investigation, ultimately concluding that Benjamin had not violated school policies. The students involved felt traumatized by the process, and by the time the proceedings concluded, they had graduated.Benjamin later sued Ashley, Alexandra, and their mothers for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on statements made during the Title IX investigations. The defendants filed a special motion to dismiss under Colorado's anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that their statements were absolutely privileged as they were made during a quasi-judicial proceeding. Both the trial court and the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the Title IX proceedings were not quasi-judicial due to procedural shortcomings, allowing Benjamin's lawsuit to proceed.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and clarified that the determination of whether a proceeding is quasi-judicial is separate from whether it offers sufficient due process. The court held that a proceeding is quasi-judicial if it involves determining the interests, rights, or duties of specific individuals and applying current law or policy to past or present facts. The court concluded that the Title IX investigation met these criteria and was therefore quasi-judicial. Consequently, the statements made during the investigation were protected by absolute privilege, and the lawsuit against Ashley, Alexandra, and their mothers could not proceed. The court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Hushen v. Gonzales" on Justia Law

E.R., the appellant, filed a complaint against the Beaufort County School District, alleging that the district failed to respond appropriately to her reports of sexual abuse and harassment while she was a student. E.R. claimed she was sexually assaulted by three male students and subsequently bullied and harassed by other students. Despite reporting these incidents to school officials, she alleged that no appropriate action was taken.The case was initially filed in South Carolina state court, asserting claims under Title IX and state law for negligence and gross negligence. The school district removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss it, arguing that the claims were untimely under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), which has a two-year statute of limitations. The district court agreed, applying the SCTCA's statute of limitations to both the Title IX and state law claims, and dismissed the case as it was filed more than two years after E.R. turned 18.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the appropriate statute of limitations for Title IX claims is the state's general personal injury statute of limitations, not the SCTCA's two-year period. The court reasoned that Title IX claims should borrow the statute of limitations from the most analogous state law cause of action, which in this case is the general personal injury statute. Since South Carolina's general personal injury statute of limitations is three years, E.R.'s claims were timely.The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of E.R.'s complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "E.R. v. Beaufort County School District" on Justia Law

Christopher Cole, an employee of The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCSR), sustained severe injuries while working, leading to the amputation of both legs. Cole filed a negligence claim under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), asserting general negligence and negligence per se due to KCSR's violation of an Illinois close clearance regulation. The jury found KCSR liable and awarded Cole $12 million in damages, which the circuit court entered as judgment. The court later amended the judgment to include post-judgment interest.The Circuit Court of St. Louis County presided over the initial trial. The jury found Cole 21 percent at fault and KCSR 79 percent at fault. KCSR filed motions for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), both of which were overruled. Cole subsequently filed a motion to amend the judgment to include post-judgment interest, which the circuit court granted.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case. The court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment in many respects but vacated the $12 million damages award and the post-judgment interest. The court held that the circuit court erred in submitting jury instructions that deprived KCSR of its contributory negligence defense under FELA. The court also found that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to amend its judgment to include post-judgment interest after the original judgment became final. The Supreme Court of Missouri remanded the case to the circuit court to reduce the damages award to $9.48 million, reflecting Cole’s contributory negligence, and to enter judgment without post-judgment interest. View "Cole v. The Kansas City Southern Railway Co." on Justia Law

Dr. Jeffery Weisman filed a lawsuit after resigning from Washington University’s residency program, alleging that he was forced to resign due to hostile treatment and that Washington University and Barnes Jewish Hospital prevented him from transferring to another residency program. Weisman brought claims for breach of contract, tortious interference, fraudulent inducement, and defamation under Missouri law. Washington University and Barnes Jewish Hospital counterclaimed for a violation of the Missouri Computer Tampering Act (MCTA).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed Weisman’s tortious interference and fraudulent inducement claims, and some of his breach of contract claims. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Barnes Jewish Hospital on the remaining breach of contract claims and the defamation claim. The court also dismissed the MCTA counterclaims and the defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees. Weisman appealed the adverse judgments on his claims, and the defendants cross-appealed the dismissal of the MCTA counterclaims and denial of attorneys’ fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. The appellate court held that the statute of frauds barred Weisman’s breach of contract claim related to the Lab-Residency Contract, as it was an oral agreement for a term of five years. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the tortious interference claims, concluding that Evers and Benzinger, as agents of Washington University, were not third parties to the contracts. Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of the fraudulent inducement claims, as the alleged Separation Agreement did not exist. Finally, the court affirmed the dismissal of the MCTA counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as Weisman’s tender of full payment rendered the claims moot. View "Weisman v. Barnes Jewish Hospital" on Justia Law