Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Karen Orr tripped on a soft drink display at a Dollar General store in Ackerman, Mississippi, and subsequently fell. After Orr's death, Sandie Keister, on behalf of Orr's estate, sued Dolgencorp for premises-liability negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. During discovery, Dolgencorp failed to produce security camera footage, data from the store’s daily planner, and safety-check data. The district court found that Dolgencorp lost or could not access this evidence. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, and Keister also filed a motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi granted summary judgment for Dolgencorp on all claims and denied Keister’s motions for summary judgment and sanctions. Keister appealed, arguing that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Dolgencorp on her premises liability claim and in denying her motion for sanctions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and affirmed the decision. The court held that Keister failed to provide evidence that Dolgencorp breached its duty to warn Orr of the dangerous condition. Keister's arguments, including the mode-of-operation theory and the duration of the dangerous condition, were insufficient to establish Dolgencorp's liability. The court also affirmed the denial of Keister’s motion for sanctions, finding no evidence that Dolgencorp intended to deprive her of the missing evidence and noting that the request for a jury instruction became moot after summary judgment was granted.The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Keister v. Dolgencorp" on Justia Law

Fire-Dex, a manufacturer of personal protective equipment for firefighters, faced lawsuits from firefighters and their spouses alleging exposure to carcinogens from Fire-Dex's products. These lawsuits were consolidated in multidistrict litigation in South Carolina. Fire-Dex had general commercial liability insurance policies with Admiral Insurance Company and requested Admiral to defend and indemnify it against the lawsuits. Admiral refused, leading to a declaratory judgment action in federal court in Ohio, where the district court declined to exercise jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio initially had diversity jurisdiction over Admiral's declaratory judgment action but chose to abstain from exercising it, a decision affirmed by the Sixth Circuit. Subsequently, Fire-Dex filed a lawsuit in Ohio state court seeking a declaration that Admiral must defend and indemnify it, along with compensatory and punitive damages for breach of contract and bad faith. Admiral removed the case to federal court and filed counterclaims for declaratory judgment. Fire-Dex moved to remand the case to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision to remand the declaratory claims and stay the damages claims. The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred in abstaining from the declaratory claims under Thibodaux abstention, as the case did not involve unsettled questions of state law intimately involved with state sovereignty. The court also found that abstaining from the declaratory claims was an abuse of discretion because the declaratory and damages claims were closely intertwined, and no traditional abstention doctrine applied to the damages claims. The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Fire-Dex, LLC v. Admiral Insurance Co." on Justia Law

A private fencing coach alleged that during a flight, a university’s assistant fencing coach sexually harassed and assaulted her. She reported the incident to the university’s head coach, who discouraged her from reporting it further and, along with the assistant coach, allegedly retaliated against her within the fencing community. The university later investigated and confirmed the harassment but found no policy violation. The coach sued the university, the two coaches, and the Title IX coordinator, claiming violations of Title IX and state-law torts.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina transferred the case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania due to improper venue and judicial efficiency. After the transfer, the plaintiff amended her complaint, and the defendants moved to dismiss. The transferee court dismissed the entire suit, holding that the plaintiff, as neither a student nor an employee, was outside the zone of interests protected by Title IX. It also dismissed the state-law tort claims as untimely or implausible.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that the zone-of-interests test applies to Title IX claims and that the plaintiff’s claims related to her exclusion from university-hosted fencing events and retaliation manifesting on campus were within that zone. The court affirmed the dismissal of the state-law tort claims against the university and its employees, except for the claims against the assistant coach, which were not time-barred under North Carolina’s three-year statute of limitations. The case was vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Oldham v. Penn State University" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Cockrum developed mesothelioma after working for Alcoa Inc. for several decades, where he was exposed to asbestos without adequate protective measures. Alcoa was aware of the dangers of asbestos and the potential for long-term health issues, but did not provide sufficient warnings or protections. Cockrum was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2022 and subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against Howmet Aerospace, Inc., the corporate successor to Alcoa, claiming deliberate intent to injure by exposing him to asbestos.The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Howmet, concluding that Cockrum could not meet the deliberate injury exception under Washington’s Industrial Insurance Act (IIA), which requires actual knowledge that injury was certain to occur. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, citing the precedent set in Walston v. Boeing Co., which held that employees could not sue for latent diseases like mesothelioma because they could not meet the required level of certainty.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case and overruled the Walston decision, recognizing it as incorrect and harmful. The court held that in cases of latent diseases, virtual certainty is sufficient to prove an employer’s actual knowledge that injury was certain to occur. This new standard does not alter the general requirement for immediate and visible injuries but is limited to latent disease cases. The court remanded the case to the trial court to determine summary judgment under the virtual certainty standard. View "Cockrum v. C.H. Murphy/Clark-Ullman, Inc." on Justia Law

Giorgio Webster sued Dr. Jeffrey Osguthorpe and Summit Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, PC, for dental malpractice related to a biopsy. On December 8, 2020, a mandatory case evaluation resulted in an award for Webster, which he accepted, but the defendants rejected. The case proceeded to trial after multiple settlement conferences and facilitations. The jury awarded Webster $68,000 in past economic damages and $2.682 million in noneconomic damages, which was later adjusted to $565,000 due to statutory caps. Webster sought costs, statutory interest, and attorney fees as case-evaluation sanctions under the former MCR 2.403(O), which allowed such sanctions before its amendment on January 1, 2022.The Macomb Circuit Court granted Webster's request for sanctions, applying the former rule, and the parties agreed on reasonable attorney fees. The trial court entered an amended judgment reflecting these fees, statutory interest, and costs. The defendants appealed, and the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the sanctions award, stating that the trial court should not have applied the former rule since the verdict was substantially higher than the case-evaluation award, causing no injustice to Webster.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the trial court had the discretion to apply the former MCR 2.403(O) under MCR 1.102, which allows a court to apply former rules if applying the current rules would work an injustice. The Supreme Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, as Webster had relied on the former rule when making strategic decisions, and all relevant actions occurred before the rule change. The Court of Appeals' judgment was reversed in part, and the trial court's award of case-evaluation sanctions was reinstated. View "Webster v. Osguthorpe" on Justia Law

An egg farm owned by Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc. experienced a collapse of its poultry cage system in 2020, resulting in significant damage and the death of a farm worker. Rembrandt had contracted with Tecno Poultry Equipment, SpA in 2006 to design and manufacture the cage system, which included a provision for Tecno to supervise its installation. The installation was completed in 2007. Rembrandt sued Tecno in 2021, alleging strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, and negligence. The district court allowed the negligence claim to proceed to trial, where a jury found that Tecno did not breach its duty to supervise the installation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa granted summary judgment for Tecno on the strict products liability and breach of implied warranties claims. At trial, the jury heard conflicting expert testimony regarding the cause of the collapse. Rembrandt's expert attributed the collapse to missing screws and misplaced bolts, while Tecno's experts blamed improper manure disposal by Rembrandt. The jury ultimately sided with Tecno, and the district court entered judgment in favor of Tecno.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Rembrandt argued that the district court erred in denying its motions for judgment as a matter of law and in excluding a screenshot of Tecno's website. The appellate court held that Rembrandt failed to preserve its challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by not renewing its motion under Rule 50(b) after the jury verdict. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the website screenshot, as it was not relevant to the 2006 contract. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc. v. Tecno Poultry Equipment, SpA" on Justia Law

John P. Middleton filed a defamation lawsuit against Roy Lee, The Hollywood Reporter LLC, and Gary Baum in the Southern District of Florida. The case stemmed from a professional and personal fallout between Middleton and Lee, which began and ended in California. Middleton had sued Lee in California for millions of dollars, and during the ongoing legal battle, Middleton relocated to Florida. In June 2020, The Hollywood Reporter published an article by Baum that detailed the feud and contained allegedly false statements about Middleton. Middleton claimed these statements were defamatory and filed the lawsuit in June 2022.The district court dismissed Middleton's action, applying California's one-year statute of limitations for defamation claims, which rendered the claims time-barred. The court concluded that Florida's borrowing statute and choice-of-law rules required the application of California law due to the significant relationship factors. The court also denied Middleton's motion to amend the complaint, deeming it futile as the proposed amendments did not alter the determination that California's statute of limitations applied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that California had the most significant relationship to the defamation claims, considering factors such as the place where the injury and conduct causing the injury occurred, the domicile and residence of the parties, and where the relationship between the parties was centered. Consequently, California's one-year statute of limitations applied, and Middleton's claims were time-barred. The court upheld the dismissal of the action and the denial of the motion to amend the complaint. View "Middleton v. The Hollywood Reporter LLC" on Justia Law

Melvin G. Welch died in 2023 from mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. His widow, Donna B. Welch, sued Atlas Turner, Inc. and other defendants, alleging their products caused his death. Atlas Turner, a Canadian company, produced and sold asbestos insulation, which was shipped to South Carolina. Welch was likely exposed to these products while working in Greenwood, South Carolina. The case was brought in Richland County and assigned to Judge Jean H. Toal, who oversees the South Carolina asbestos docket.Atlas Turner moved to dismiss the claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the trial court denied the motion and ordered Atlas Turner to participate in discovery. Atlas Turner ignored deposition notices and refused to comply with discovery orders, claiming it had no knowledgeable witnesses and that the Québec Business Concerns Records Act (QBCRA) prohibited it from disclosing information. The trial court held Atlas Turner in contempt, struck its answer, and placed it in default. The court also appointed a Receiver over Atlas Turner's Insurance Assets.The South Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's sanctions and the appointment of the Receiver over Atlas Turner's Insurance Assets. The court found that Atlas Turner's refusal to comply with discovery was willful and that the QBCRA did not excuse its non-compliance. The court also held that the trial court had the authority to appoint a Receiver before judgment due to Atlas Turner's conduct, which indicated an intent to evade responsibility. However, the Supreme Court reversed the portion of the Receivership order that granted the Receiver authority beyond investigating and collecting Atlas Turner's Insurance Assets. View "Welch v. Atlas Turner, Inc." on Justia Law

Eugene Kritter, an experienced helicopter pilot, owned and operated Kritter Cropdusting. While crop dusting over a farm in North Carolina, his helicopter collided with a low-hanging steel wire, resulting in his death. Kritter Cropdusting and Kritter’s estate filed a negligence lawsuit against the farm owners and operators, as well as Nutrien, the pesticide company that hired Kritter Cropdusting for the job.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court concluded that the farm owners and operators owed no duty of care to Kritter to remove or warn about the wire, as the risk was not reasonably foreseeable to them. The court also found that neither Nutrien nor its employee, Elmore, owed Kritter a duty of care. Additionally, the court rejected the argument that Kritter was contributorily negligent and found that the wire was not an open and obvious condition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because material questions of fact remained regarding whether the defendants owed a duty of care to Kritter. The court noted that under North Carolina law, issues of negligence are generally for the jury to decide, especially when facts are disputed or multiple reasonable inferences can be drawn. The court also found that the district court erred in concluding that the risk posed by the wire was not foreseeable and that Kritter’s death was incident to his work. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Kritter v. Mooring" on Justia Law

In April 2021, David Browne visited Billy Jack’s Saloon and Grill in Dewey-Humboldt, Arizona. After leaving the bar, Browne, with a blood alcohol content nearly four times the legal limit, caused a multi-vehicle collision on State Route 69. Victor Sanchez-Ravuelta, Janette Dodge, and their two minor children, Elijah and Amelia, were injured in the crash. The plaintiffs alleged that the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control (the Department) was negligent in failing to prevent Billy Jack’s from overserving its patrons.The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona, the Town of Dewey-Humboldt, and Yavapai County. The Superior Court in Maricopa County dismissed the claims against all defendants. The court found that the plaintiffs’ notice of claim to the County and Town was insufficient and that the Department did not have a legal duty to protect the plaintiffs from the harm caused by Browne’s actions. The court dismissed the minor plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice and the adult plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.The Arizona Court of Appeals held that the Department owed a statute-based duty of care to the plaintiffs. However, the Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the Department did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs. The court found that the statutes cited by the plaintiffs did not impose a mandatory duty on the Department to prevent the overserving of patrons. The Supreme Court vacated parts of the Court of Appeals' opinion and affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of the adult plaintiffs’ claims against the State with prejudice. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to consider the Town’s cross-appeal. View "SANCHEZ-RAVUELTA v YAVAPAI" on Justia Law