Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

E.B., an adult with cognitive and physical disabilities, regularly used a taxi service operated by MKBS, LLC, with Jesus Manuel Ortiz as her driver for several months. E.B. alleged that Ortiz sexually assaulted her during one of these rides. J.B., E.B.'s legal guardian, filed suit against both Ortiz and MKBS, asserting various claims including intentional torts against Ortiz and negligence and respondeat superior liability against MKBS. MKBS timely denied the allegations, but Ortiz failed to respond, resulting in a clerk’s entry of default against him.After Ortiz’s default, the district court stayed the civil action pending resolution of Ortiz’s related criminal trial, which ended in his acquittal. During the subsequent civil trial against MKBS, Ortiz was called by MKBS to testify and denied the alleged assault. J.B. unsuccessfully sought to prevent Ortiz from testifying contrary to the facts deemed admitted by his default. The jury found for MKBS, concluding that Ortiz did not assault E.B. and that E.B. suffered no damages. J.B. later moved for default judgment against Ortiz, which the court initially granted. Ortiz, acting pro se, moved to set aside the default judgment, and the court found excusable neglect and vacated the default. After further proceedings, the district court entered judgment in Ortiz’s favor, relying on the jury verdict from MKBS’s trial.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. The Court held that a defaulting defendant may testify at a non-defaulting codefendant’s trial, even contrary to facts admitted by default, if not prohibited by other law. The Court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the default judgment against Ortiz for excusable neglect and in entering judgment in his favor to avoid inconsistent judgments. View "J.B. v. MKBS, LLC" on Justia Law

A pregnant patient was admitted to a medical center, where she suffered an anaphylactic reaction to medication administered for a streptococcus infection. Her treating physician and hospital staff provided various treatments but did not administer epinephrine, a standard treatment for anaphylaxis. The patient’s child was born with severe brain injuries, which the plaintiff alleged were caused by the anaphylactic episode and the defendants’ failure to use epinephrine. The plaintiff sued the physician and medical entities for healthcare liability, contending that the physician’s decision not to use epinephrine fell below the standard of care and that the hospital staff was negligent in monitoring.After an initial trial ended in a defense verdict but was set aside due to evidentiary errors, a second jury trial again resulted in a verdict for the defendants. Following the second trial, it was discovered that a juror had, during deliberations, conducted personal research by reading an EpiPen warning label at home and shared its contents with the other jurors. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, arguing this extraneous information affected the verdict. The Circuit Court for Knox County denied the motion, ruling the plaintiff had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that the jury was influenced by the information.On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed, holding the trial court had applied the wrong legal standard and that prejudice should be presumed when jurors are exposed to extraneous, material information. The defendants then sought review.The Supreme Court of Tennessee held that, in civil cases involving the constitutional right to a jury trial, courts must use a burden-shifting framework: the party challenging a verdict must first prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the jury was exposed to material extraneous information, which triggers a rebuttable presumption of prejudice. The party defending the verdict must then show there is no reasonable possibility the information altered the verdict. The Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded for the trial court to apply this framework. View "Collier ex rel. Chayce C. v. Roussis" on Justia Law

After the death of their fourteen-year-old daughter Taylor Rose Sookra in December 2021, four months after she received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, Arthur Sookra and April Burch-Sookra filed a lawsuit. They alleged willful misconduct under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) against Pfizer, federal officials, the physician who administered the vaccine, and the pediatric practice. Their claims included both federal law claims and state-law tort claims.Initially, the case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. When the Sookras added a PREP Act willful-misconduct claim, they requested and obtained a transfer to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, as required by the statute. The defendants moved to dismiss, and the motions were referred to a magistrate judge who recommended dismissal of the claims against the federal government on sovereign immunity grounds and against Pfizer for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The magistrate also recommended dismissal of Pfizer’s state-law claims based on immunity and advised that the court decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. The district court adopted these recommendations, dismissed the case, and denied as moot the plaintiffs’ later request for a three-judge court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the district court erred by dismissing the complaint without first convening a three-judge court, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(e)(5) for willful-misconduct claims under the PREP Act. The appellate court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to initiate procedures for convening a three-judge court. The court did not address the other arguments raised by the parties. View "Sookra v. Pfizer Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff was injured while riding a public bus operated by the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) after the bus driver braked abruptly when a car cut in front of the bus. The plaintiff alleged the driver acted negligently, causing her injuries, and sought damages for medical expenses and pain and suffering. The incident occurred on May 29, 2016. The plaintiff testified that the driver was distracted and speeding, while the driver stated he was operating safely and only stopped suddenly to avoid a collision after being cut off by another vehicle. The plaintiff did not immediately seek medical attention but visited the emergency room days later, where she was diagnosed with a shoulder fracture and chest contusions. RIPTA contested liability and argued that the plaintiff had preexisting conditions.The Rhode Island Superior Court conducted a jury trial, during which the court made several evidentiary rulings, allowed RIPTA to amend its answer to assert the sudden emergency doctrine, and dismissed a juror who had scheduling conflicts. The court also issued jury instructions on spoliation after it was revealed that bus video footage was not preserved. The jury returned a verdict for RIPTA. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, which the Superior Court denied after addressing both procedural and substantive arguments.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that the evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion, the spoliation instruction was proper, and the amendment of RIPTA’s answer and the jury instructions were permissible. The Court found that the plaintiff had waived or failed to preserve several arguments and that no reversible error occurred regarding the dismissal of the juror or the denial of the motion for a new trial. View "Galindez v. Rhode Island Public Transit Authority" on Justia Law

A state employee was involved in a fatal car accident while driving a state-owned vehicle in the course of employment, resulting in the deaths of both himself and another driver, Haley Wilson. Haley was survived by her minor daughter, for whom Thomas Wilson acted as both personal representative of Haley’s estate and as conservator. After the accident, Thomas submitted claims to the state on behalf of the estate and the minor for wrongful death, survivorship, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The state offered to settle all claims for $750,000, referencing a statutory damages cap, but Thomas declined.Following the rejected settlement and before any lawsuit was filed by Thomas, the State of Montana filed a petition in the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, seeking to interplead the $750,000 and obtain a release from further liability. The state’s petition did not specifically invoke Montana’s interpleader rule or the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. The district court granted summary judgment for the state, authorized the deposit of $750,000 into the court registry, discharged the state and the state employee from further liability, and dismissed the state from the interpleader action with prejudice. Thomas appealed, challenging both the use of interpleader and the constitutionality of the statutory damages cap.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the district court erred in permitting the state to proceed via interpleader, because the state was the alleged tortfeasor and not a disinterested stakeholder, and the claims asserted were not adverse in the manner required for interpleader. The court further held that any discussion of the constitutionality of the damages cap would be speculative and advisory given the absence of a filed lawsuit, a determination of liability, or a verdict exceeding the statutory limit. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s summary judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the state’s petition. View "State v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Several parents whose premature infants developed necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) after being fed cow’s milk-based formula at Pennsylvania Hospital sued the manufacturers of the formula, as well as the hospital, in Pennsylvania state court. The parents alleged that the manufacturers’ products caused NEC and that the hospital failed to warn of the risks and implement policies to protect patients. Some plaintiffs were Pennsylvania citizens and others from New Jersey. The hospital and its related entities were named as defendants, and the claims against them were based on state law.After the lawsuits were filed, the manufacturers removed the cases to federal court. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania transferred the cases to a multidistrict litigation proceeding in the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs’ initial motion to remand was granted after the district court found that the claims against the hospital were potentially viable, defeating removal on diversity grounds. The cases returned to Pennsylvania state court, where discovery proceeded and the hospital was later dismissed with prejudice after the state court sustained preliminary objections. The plaintiffs did not immediately appeal. The manufacturers then removed the cases a second time, arguing that the hospital had been fraudulently joined solely to defeat diversity jurisdiction. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, this time concluding that the plaintiffs’ lack of active pursuit of claims against the hospital showed “no real intention in good faith to prosecute the action,” amounting to fraudulent joinder.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. The Seventh Circuit held that fraudulent joinder exists only where a plaintiff makes false jurisdictional allegations or has no chance of success against the non-diverse defendant, taking all facts and law in the plaintiff’s favor. The court held that the plaintiffs’ litigation conduct and subjective intent are not proper bases for finding fraudulent joinder. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Abdullah v Mead Johnson & Company LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, who operated boarding schools and programs for troubled teens, was featured in a three-part documentary series that examined the troubled-teen industry and included depictions and commentary about his role in industry organizations and specific schools. The filmmaker, herself a former student at an affiliated program, created the series based on her personal experience and broader investigative reporting. The series, produced and distributed by a major streaming service, included segments which the plaintiff claimed falsely implied his responsibility for a teen’s death, omitted the ultimate dismissal of criminal charges against him following a facility raid in Costa Rica, and accused him of abusing children and committing crimes.The United States District Court for the District of Utah dismissed the plaintiff's complaint, which included claims for defamation, defamation per se, false light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. The court concluded that the challenged statements were either non-actionable opinions protected by law and the First Amendment, true, or not defamatory. The court also granted the defendants’ special motion to strike under anti-SLAPP statutes, awarding attorneys’ fees and costs, and declined to decide between Utah or California law because the outcome was the same under either.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit held that none of the challenged documentary segments were capable of defamatory meaning under Utah law or the First Amendment. The court found the statements to be either protected opinion, not materially false, or not objectively verifiable. The court also found the anti-SLAPP fee award appropriate and rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding amendment and anti-SLAPP procedure, holding that any errors on those points were invited by the plaintiff’s own positions below. View "Lichfield v. Kubler" on Justia Law

After enduring physical and sexual abuse while in the care of James and Susan McLaurie as a young child, the plaintiff obtained a $150 million judgment against both individuals in Missouri state court. Seeking to collect on this judgment, the plaintiff subsequently filed a new action in state court against the McLauries and their homeowner’s insurer, Liberty Mutual, asserting equitable garnishment claims against all three and additional claims, including bad faith and breach of contract, against Liberty Mutual.Liberty Mutual removed the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, invoking diversity jurisdiction. At the time of removal, James McLaurie had not yet been served but later entered an appearance. The plaintiff moved to remand, arguing a lack of complete diversity, and James McLaurie joined this motion, expressly refusing to consent to removal. The district court disagreed that diversity was lacking but found that the absence of consent from all defendants rendered removal procedurally defective under the requirement of unanimity in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). The court granted remand on this procedural ground.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit examined whether it had jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand order. The appellate court held that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), remand orders based on procedural defects—such as a lack of unanimity among defendants—are not reviewable, so long as the district court’s basis was at least “colorably” procedural. The court determined that the district court’s characterization of its order as resting on a procedural defect was colorable. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "G.T. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Two individuals became involved in a public dispute relating to allegations of Russian interference and the passage of the Magnitsky Act. One party, a British citizen, made several statements in media interviews and social media posts from New York, characterizing the other party—a Russian-American lobbyist—as a “spy operator in Washington, D.C.” and linking him to a controversial meeting at Trump Tower in New York. The lobbyist claimed these statements were defamatory and brought suit in the District of Columbia, arguing that the statements caused harm to his reputation in D.C. and that the speaker’s comments established personal jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the claim and dismissed the case, holding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the British citizen. The district court also denied the speaker’s request for attorney’s fees under the D.C. Anti–SLAPP Act, finding that such fees were not warranted because the dismissal was based on lack of jurisdiction rather than on a motion under the statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the British citizen did not “purposefully avail” himself of the benefits and protections of D.C. law, as required under the minimum-contacts test from International Shoe Co. v. Washington. The statements at issue did not focus on D.C. or create jurisdictionally significant contacts with the forum. The court also affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees, ruling that the D.C. Anti–SLAPP Act does not apply when the dismissal is for lack of personal jurisdiction rather than under the statute’s special motion to dismiss. The court denied the request for jurisdictional discovery. View "Akhmetshin v. Browder" on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs, represented by the same counsel as earlier litigants, alleged injuries caused by cellphone radiation exposure. Their complaints were nearly identical to those in a previous set of cases involving similar claims. The plaintiffs agreed, through joint stipulations filed in their cases, that the outcome of expert admissibility litigation in the earlier cases would apply to their own. This agreement included being bound by both the substantive ruling on whether expert testimony about general causation was admissible and all procedural rulings leading up to that determination. The stipulations were signed by counsel for both sides, and subsequent court orders stayed the plaintiffs’ cases pending the resolution of expert admissibility in the earlier litigation.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia managed the earlier cases by first resolving whether the plaintiffs had admissible expert testimony on general causation, limiting discovery to that issue. After several hearings and rulings, the court ultimately excluded the plaintiffs’ expert testimony under the Daubert/Rule 702 standard, and granted summary judgment to the defendants because the plaintiffs lacked the necessary expert evidence to support their claims. The Brooks plaintiffs later moved to lift the stays in their cases, arguing for broader discovery and the opportunity to present new expert witnesses, but the court denied this motion.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed whether the Brooks plaintiffs were bound by their agreements and the trial court’s rulings. The court held that the plaintiffs had agreed—expressly or implicitly—to be bound by both the outcome of the expert admissibility litigation and the procedural rulings in the earlier cases. The court affirmed the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs lacked admissible expert testimony required to prove their claims. View "Brooks v. Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics US, Inc." on Justia Law