Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff underwent a surgical procedure involving multiple surgical staplers, one of which was used to create an anastomosis that subsequently leaked. In October 2021, the plaintiff filed a products liability suit against several manufacturers of surgical staplers. Over the course of pretrial proceedings, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina issued multiple scheduling orders, ultimately extending the plaintiff’s expert disclosure deadline to March 15, 2024. The plaintiff failed to disclose any experts by this deadline. Twenty days later, the plaintiff moved to extend the expert disclosure deadline, citing delays in obtaining discovery and the model number of the stapler at issue.The district court denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend the scheduling order, finding that he had not shown “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), and entered summary judgment for the defendants due to the absence of expert testimony needed to support the plaintiff’s claims. The court noted that the plaintiff had not acted diligently, as required by Rule 16(b)(4), and had not filed a motion to compel or otherwise timely challenged the adequacy of discovery responses. The district court also relied on the plaintiff’s own representations regarding when he learned the model number of the stapler.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the denial of the motion to amend for abuse of discretion and the grant of summary judgment de novo. The appellate court held that the district court correctly applied Rule 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” standard to the request to extend the expert disclosure deadline and did not abuse its discretion in finding a lack of diligence. Because the plaintiff failed to offer expert evidence, the court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings in full. View "Eichin v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, LLC" on Justia Law

A developer purchased property in the Brookland neighborhood that included a historic mural and an adjacent parking lot providing clear sightlines to the mural. Another individual, who sought to preserve the mural, had previously contracted to buy the property but the deal fell through amid allegations of contract forgery by the seller. The developer, holding a promissory note secured by a deed of trust, initiated foreclosure and ultimately purchased the property at auction. The unsuccessful buyer accused the developer of fraud and publicly made statements labeling him as corrupt and claiming he had “problems with the DOJ” and had taken the property “by theft and fraud.” These statements were repeated online via a media outlet controlled by the unsuccessful buyer.The developer sued for defamation and false light in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The defendant moved to dismiss under the District’s Anti-SLAPP Act, arguing that his statements were protected advocacy on matters of public interest and that the developer was a limited-purpose public figure, thus requiring proof of actual malice. The trial court found the developer to be a limited-purpose public figure and denied most of the motion, allowing the claims to proceed except those related to certain statements outside the statute of limitations.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. It held that the Anti-SLAPP Act applied because the statements addressed issues of public interest, such as urban development and historic preservation. The court concluded that the developer was a limited-purpose public figure and therefore must show actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. The court found that the developer failed to demonstrate that the statements were false or made with actual malice. As a result, the court reversed the trial court’s denial of the Anti-SLAPP motion and remanded for further proceedings. View "Capitol Intelligence Group, Inc. v. Waldman" on Justia Law

Monica Sparrow accompanied her daughter to a hospital appointment during the COVID-19 pandemic, when special entry and exit procedures were in place. After her daughter’s appointment, Sparrow was instructed by a nurse to exit the hospital through an employee parking garage to retrieve her car. While leaving through this route, which she was unfamiliar with, Sparrow slipped on a wet, partially concealed, and allegedly slick drainage grate that shifted under her weight. Sparrow sustained a serious knee injury requiring surgery. She claimed that the hospital required her to use an unreasonably dangerous route and failed to warn her of its dangers.The case was first heard in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court. Rush Health Systems, the hospital operator, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the drainage grate was an obvious, non-dangerous condition and that Sparrow was a licensee to whom limited duties were owed. The hospital contended that the grate's presence and condition were not unreasonably dangerous and that Sparrow was at fault for not watching where she was walking. Sparrow presented evidence, including her own and expert testimony, suggesting the grate was slick, poorly lit, shifted under weight, and that she was directed by hospital staff to use that exit. The trial court denied summary judgment, finding that genuine factual disputes remained as to whether the condition was dangerous and whether Sparrow was an invitee or licensee.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the denial of summary judgment de novo. The Court held that Sparrow had presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the drainage grate constituted a dangerous condition and her status as an invitee or licensee at the time of her fall. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Rush Health Systems, Inc. v. Sparrow" on Justia Law

A mother and father, previously divorced, shared joint custody of their minor son. While visiting his father’s home, the child wandered into a neighbor’s property, accessed a swimming pool, and drowned. Following the child’s death, the mother—on behalf of her son—filed a wrongful death suit against both the father and the neighbor. The father cross-claimed against the neighbor for wrongful death as well. The neighbor settled with both parents, and the settlement funds were interpleaded with the Jefferson Circuit Court, Bessemer Division, which then dismissed all claims against the neighbor.After the neighbor’s dismissal, the mother received half of the settlement funds. The father’s portion was held by the court pending resolution of a related criminal case, in which the father later pleaded guilty to criminally negligent homicide. The mother then requested that the court award her the remainder of the funds, arguing that Alabama law and public policy prohibited the father from benefitting financially from his son’s death. The father argued that because his conviction did not involve a felonious and intentional killing, he was not barred from recovery. The trial court agreed with the father and ordered the remaining funds to be disbursed to him, while reserving all other issues for trial or further hearing.Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case. The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the order appealed from was not a final judgment. The trial court had expressly reserved remaining claims—specifically, the wrongful death claim against the father—so not all issues between all parties had been conclusively resolved. The Supreme Court of Alabama therefore dismissed the appeal. View "B.S.H. v. Humphryes" on Justia Law

A man filed suit in 2017 against three individuals and a club, alleging that he was sexually abused as a child between 1993 and 2000. He claimed that the abuse caused him numerous injuries but asserted that he did not learn of the connection between the abuse and his injuries until 2014, after receiving psychotherapy. The defendants argued that his claims were barred by the statute of limitations, contending that he was aware of the connection between the abuse and his injuries before reaching adulthood, based on deposition testimony and documents such as statements the plaintiff made to police.The Circuit Court of Sussex County considered deposition transcripts and documentary evidence submitted by the parties, with no live testimony presented at the hearing. The circuit court found that the plaintiff knew of the causal relationship between the abuse and his injuries before he reached the age of majority in 2002. Thus, the court determined that his claims accrued when he became an adult, and were barred by the two-year statute of limitations that expired in 2004. The court granted the defendants’ pleas in bar, dismissing the claims.The Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed this decision, holding that, since only documentary evidence had been presented, the circuit court’s factual findings were not entitled to deference. It reviewed the matter de novo, found disputed material facts, and concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate. On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia held that the Court of Appeals applied the wrong standard of review. The Supreme Court clarified that factual findings based on deposition evidence are entitled to substantial deference unless plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the circuit court’s judgment, holding that the claims were time-barred. View "Stevens v. Jurnigan" on Justia Law

A patient underwent surgery on September 4, 2020, and died twelve days later. Her estate and children brought a medical malpractice suit against the surgeon and hospital, alleging negligence. The defendants sought dismissal, arguing the plaintiffs had not satisfied Iowa’s certificate of merit requirements under Iowa Code section 147.140(1), which mandates a supporting expert affidavit early in medical malpractice litigation. The district court denied the motion to dismiss.The defendants then sought interlocutory review from the Iowa Supreme Court. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the district court’s denial, finding the plaintiffs had not complied with the statutory affidavit requirement, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case with prejudice. Following the remand, the plaintiffs attempted to file dismissals without prejudice before and after the district court’s order of dismissal with prejudice. Despite these filings, the district court entered a dismissal with prejudice as directed by the Iowa Supreme Court. The plaintiffs then filed a new lawsuit asserting the same claims against the same defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss this second action, citing claim preclusion (res judicata) and the statute of limitations. The Iowa District Court for Clinton County dismissed the second action.On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The court held that its prior mandate required dismissal with prejudice, and any attempt by the plaintiffs to dismiss without prejudice was contrary to that mandate and thus ineffective. The court found that the elements of claim preclusion were satisfied: the parties and claims were identical to the prior action, and there was a final judgment on the merits. Accordingly, the second lawsuit was barred. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal on claim preclusion grounds. View "Shontz v. Mercy Medical Center-Clinton, Inc." on Justia Law

Two minor plaintiffs, A.G. and G.W., were sex trafficked as teenagers by traffickers who repeatedly brought them to United Inn, a hotel in Decatur, Georgia, owned and operated by Northbrook Industries, Inc. Their traffickers spent time each day at the hotel interacting with staff, and on two occasions, hotel employees allowed the minors back into their room at the trafficker’s request even though they had no identification and were not on the reservation. The hotel was in a high-crime area with frequent prostitution arrests, and it failed to post required anti-trafficking notices. Another plaintiff, C.B., a minor, was sex trafficked at The Hilltop Inn, owned by Naseeb Investments, Inc., by a registered sex offender who was a long-term guest. The hotel placed this offender in an area with other sex offenders, rented him a second room, and complied with his request not to clean it. Employees testified to a pattern of sex trafficking and prostitution at the hotel.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, all three plaintiffs brought civil beneficiary claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) against the hotel operators, alleging the hotels knowingly benefited from and participated in trafficking ventures. A.G. and G.W. also asserted state law negligence claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding insufficient evidence of participation in a trafficking venture or knowledge, and concluded A.G. and G.W. were not invitees for their negligence claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the TVPRA’s “participation in a venture” element requires more than an arms-length transaction but does not require knowledge of a specific victim. The court found sufficient evidence for a jury to infer the hotels provided personal support to the traffickers, satisfying both the participation and knowledge elements. The court also found disputes of fact regarding invitee status under Georgia law. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the grants of summary judgment and remanded the cases for further proceedings. View "C.B. v. Naseeb Investments, Inc." on Justia Law

A certified nursing assistant employed by a home health provider sustained injuries to her right shoulder and lower back during the course of her employment. She received medical treatment from several providers and was paid mileage reimbursements for traveling between patient homes. Following her injuries, the employer’s insurance carrier denied further payment of temporary disability and medical benefits, including an outstanding medical bill, and ultimately terminated her employment. The worker secured new employment at a higher wage and subsequently filed for workers’ compensation benefits, claiming entitlement to disability benefits and payment of the disputed medical bill. The employer denied liability.The Administrative Law Judge found that the worker had a compensable lower back injury with a 12% impairment rating, entitling her to temporary total and permanent partial disability benefits, but excluded mileage reimbursements from her average weekly wage and denied payment for the outstanding medical bill based on the provider’s failure to submit it within the statutory 45-day deadline. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the ALJ’s findings. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the exclusion of mileage reimbursements and dismissed the issue of the unpaid medical bill as moot after the employer voluntarily paid it during the appeal. The Court of Appeals also rejected a motion for leave to file an amicus brief, deeming it unauthorized.The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the exclusion of mileage reimbursements from the wage calculation, holding such payments were reimbursements for actual expenses and not “wages.” The Court reversed the dismissal of the medical bill claim as moot, applying the “voluntary cessation” exception, and held that denial of compensability constitutes reasonable grounds to excuse noncompliance with the 45-day rule for submitting medical bills. The Court also found the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting the amicus motion. The decision was affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "HARRIS V. MERCY HOME HEALTH" on Justia Law

A group of former student-athletes filed suit against a university, alleging that between 2012 and 2015, they sustained serious hip injuries while participating on the university's women's rowing team. They claimed that the injuries were caused by deficient coaching, athletic training, and medical care, which they argued were influenced by systemic gender-based disparities. The athletes pursued claims under Title IX for gender discrimination and under Texas law for negligence. The university moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed with the university as to eight plaintiffs, granting summary judgment and finding their claims time-barred. For a ninth plaintiff, the district court partially granted and partially denied summary judgment, allowing some claims for compensatory damages to proceed. The plaintiffs appealed the ruling for the eight time-barred claims, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the claims were indeed barred by the statute of limitations.Following summary judgment, the university sought to recover litigation costs as the prevailing party under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The district court found the university to be a prevailing party and awarded the majority of the costs requested, after reducing the amount. The plaintiffs appealed the cost award. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the university was properly designated the prevailing party, that none of the factors in Pacheco v. Mineta weighed against awarding costs, and that the university had met its burden to show the necessity and amount of costs sought. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s award of costs. View "Clouse v. Southern Methodist University" on Justia Law

Susan Cox, a resident of Albion, Washington, died from an alleged overdose of medications prescribed by her primary care physician, Dr. Patricia Marciano. Susan’s husband, Mark Cox, and her estate initiated a wrongful-death and survivor action against Dr. Marciano and Gritman Medical Center after Susan’s death. The Coxes had lived in Washington, while Dr. Marciano and Gritman are based in Idaho, with all medical treatment having taken place in Idaho. However, at Susan’s request, her prescriptions were regularly transmitted by Dr. Marciano and Gritman to pharmacies in Washington, and Gritman engaged in marketing and accepted patients from the Washington area.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Idaho-based defendants, holding that Washington’s long-arm statute did not reach them and the exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process. The district court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery relating to general personal jurisdiction over Gritman, and did not address the issue of venue.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Dr. Marciano and Gritman Medical Center was proper under both Washington’s long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause. The court found that the defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with Washington, as they cultivated relationships with Washington residents and regularly transmitted prescriptions to Washington pharmacies in compliance with Washington law. The court also held that venue was proper in the Eastern District of Washington because a substantial part of the events underlying the claims occurred there. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings and affirmed the dismissal only as to one defendant who was conceded to be properly dismissed. View "COX V. GRITMAN MEDICAL CENTER" on Justia Law