Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

This case involves a motor vehicle accident that occurred on March 31, 2017, in Calcasieu Parish. Elvis Dean Thompson, driving an 18-wheeler for Terry Graham Trucking, rear-ended Tracey Day's vehicle, which then struck another vehicle driven by Teresa Jeffries. Thompson's truck also collided with a vehicle driven by Daniel Guidry. Tracey Day and her husband, Bradley Day, sued Thompson, Terry Graham Trucking, and their insurer, Prime Insurance Company, for damages. Bradley Day also claimed loss of consortium. The Days' case was consolidated with Jeffries' case but was later severed.The district court set the trial for September 20, 2021, but it was postponed to January 3, 2022, due to Hurricane Ida. The court ruled that no further discovery would be allowed. On the first day of the trial, the Days requested that Tracey Day be excused from attending the trial except for her testimony, citing her inability to sit for long periods. The defense objected but the court granted the request. During the trial, the defense obtained surveillance video of Tracey Day, which they argued was necessary to impeach her testimony. The district court excluded the video and the testimony of the private investigator who recorded it, citing the late production and the closed discovery period. The jury awarded the Days $3,926,849.17, and the defendants appealed.The Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed whether the district court erred in excluding the surveillance evidence. The court found that the district court abused its discretion by not conducting an in camera review of the evidence. However, after conducting its own review, the Supreme Court determined that the surveillance did not contradict Tracey Day's testimony and was not impeachment material. Therefore, the exclusion of the evidence was proper, and the judgment was affirmed. View "DAY VS. THOMPSON" on Justia Law

A suspected shoplifter with an outstanding arrest warrant shot two police officers at a retail store, killing one and injuring the other. The officers were attempting to arrest the suspect at the request of an off-duty officer working as a security guard for the retailer. The deceased officer's parents and the injured officer sued the security guard, the retailer, and the security company.The trial court dismissed the claims against the security guard under the Tort Claims Act, finding his actions were within the scope of his employment as a police officer. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of the retailer and the security company. The plaintiffs appealed.The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas reversed in part, holding that a jury could find the security guard's conduct before the warrant check was outside the scope of his police duties. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims based on the warrant check and subsequent conduct but found fact issues precluded summary judgment on other claims against the retailer.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the security guard's conduct was within the scope of his employment as a police officer, entitling him to dismissal under the Tort Claims Act. The court also adopted the public-safety officer's rule, limiting the duties owed to officers injured by the negligence that necessitated their response. Applying this rule, the court found no evidence that the retailer breached its duty to warn the officers of a known, dangerous condition. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and reinstated the trial court's judgment dismissing the claims against the security guard and granting summary judgment for the other defendants. View "SEWARD v. SANTANDER" on Justia Law

Two Texas lawyers, Michael A. Pohl and Robert Ammons, represented out-of-state clients in personal injury cases filed outside Texas. The clients, from Louisiana and Arkansas, alleged that they were solicited by individuals on behalf of the lawyers, which led to the signing of legal-services contracts. The clients later sued the lawyers in Texas, seeking to void the contracts under Texas Government Code Section 82.0651(a), which allows clients to void contracts procured through barratry, and to recover fees and penalties.The trial court dismissed all claims, granting summary judgment in favor of the lawyers. The clients appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that Section 82.0651(a) applied because part of the lawyers' conduct occurred in Texas. The court also rejected the lawyers' arguments regarding limitations and res judicata and allowed Reese's intervention in the case.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that Section 82.0651(a) does not extend to the nonresident clients' claims because the core conduct targeted by the statute—solicitation of a legal-services contract through barratry—occurred outside Texas. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment to the extent it allowed the clients to proceed with their claims under Section 82.0651(a) and rendered judgment that they take nothing on those claims. However, the court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment regarding the breach of fiduciary duty claims and remanded those claims to the trial court for further proceedings. View "POHL v. CHEATHAM" on Justia Law

Minor Doe, Father Doe, and Mother Doe filed a lawsuit against the Western Dubuque Community School District and several school officials after Minor Doe was assaulted by another student during class. The plaintiffs claimed negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and loss of consortium. The school did not contact medical personnel or the parents after the incident, and Minor Doe was later diagnosed with a concussion.The Iowa District Court for Dubuque County dismissed the case on four grounds: failure to meet the heightened pleading requirements of the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act (IMTCA), improper use of pseudonyms, failure of the breach of fiduciary duty claim as a matter of law, and the consortium claim failing without the underlying causes of action. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the case based on the IMTCA’s qualified immunity provision and the use of pseudonyms. The court held that the IMTCA’s qualified immunity provision does not apply to common law claims and that pseudonymous petitions are generally disfavored but may be allowed in certain circumstances. The court found that the plaintiffs should have been given an opportunity to amend their petition to use their real names. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claim, stating that schools and their officials do not generally have fiduciary relationships with students.The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the negligence and consortium claims and remanded the case for further proceedings, while affirming the dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claim. View "Doe v. Western Dubuque Community School District" on Justia Law

Daniel Flickinger, a full-time litigator at Wainwright, Pope & McMeekin, P.C. (WPM), posted conservative political commentary on his personal social media. In June 2020, he posted a controversial message about George Floyd's death. Lawrence Tracy King, a partner at King Simmons Ford & Spree, P.C. (the King law firm), sent this post to Flickinger's supervising attorney, Lonnie Wainwright, expressing concern. Wainwright and other WPM partners, who were not familiar with social media, reviewed Flickinger's posts and asked him to resign, which he did.Flickinger sued King and the King law firm for defamation, invasion of privacy, and tortious interference with a business relationship. The Jefferson Circuit Court dismissed his claims, but the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the dismissal of the tortious interference claim and remanded the case. The King defendants then moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no substantial evidence that their actions caused Flickinger's damages. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the King defendants, concluding that the WPM partners' decision to terminate Flickinger was based on their independent review of his social media posts.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and affirmed the summary judgment for the King law firm, finding that King's actions were not within the scope of his employment and did not benefit the firm. However, the court reversed the summary judgment for King, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether King's actions were a substantial factor in Flickinger's termination and whether King was justified in sending the post. The case was remanded for further proceedings. The court also upheld the denial of Flickinger's motion to compel King's cellular-telephone records and his motion to continue the summary-judgment hearing. View "Flickinger v. King" on Justia Law

M.R., a high school student and basketball player, was sexually abused by Cody Butler, a women's basketball coach at Yakima Valley Community College (YVCC), starting when she was 17 years old. The abuse continued into her adulthood, including inappropriate touching, sexual comments, and physical advances. Butler's actions had a significant negative impact on M.R.'s life, leading to substance abuse, abusive relationships, and other personal issues. In 2018, M.R. connected her experiences of abuse to her injuries while in therapy.In 2019, M.R. sued the State of Washington, YVCC, and Butler for various claims, including negligence and assault. The trial court denied the State's motion for summary judgment, which argued that M.R.'s claims were time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations in RCW 4.16.080(2). The court found that the abuse was a continuous series of events that could not be segregated. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that RCW 4.16.340 only applies to claims based on acts of childhood sexual abuse occurring before the plaintiff turns 18 years old.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals. The court held that RCW 4.16.340 does not preclude complainants from bringing claims of sexual abuse that originate from childhood sexual abuse and extend into the victim’s adulthood. The court found that the statute's plain language and legislative intent support the inclusion of claims for continuing sexual abuse that are based on intentional acts of childhood sexual abuse. The court also noted that the statute accounts for the continuing tort doctrine, allowing for claims involving a common scheme of abuse by the same perpetrator. View "M.R. v. State" on Justia Law

In 2009, John Roe DZ 20, John Roe DZ 21, and John Roe DZ 22 (Plaintiffs) sued an employee of Doe 3, Family Services Organization (Family Services) for alleged childhood sexual assault. The trial court dismissed the claims against the employee with prejudice due to the statute of limitations. In 2022, Plaintiffs filed a new complaint against Family Services based on the same allegations, relying on the revival provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1.The trial court overruled Family Services' demurrer, which argued that Plaintiffs' claims could not be revived under section 340.1, subdivision (q), because they were derivative of the claims litigated to finality in the 2009 action. Family Services then petitioned for a writ of mandate to direct the trial court to vacate its order and sustain the demurrer without leave to amend.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that a claim for derivative liability against a principal (Family Services) was "litigated to finality" under section 340.1, subdivision (q), where a previous suit against an agent (Dowell) for the same damages based on the same operative facts was dismissed with prejudice. The court directed the trial court to vacate its order overruling the demurrer and to sustain the demurrer with leave to amend, allowing Plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint to allege facts supporting liability based on conduct other than that of Dowell. View "Doe 3, Family Services Organization v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Maxwell Tillinghast, a 13-year-old student, collapsed from sudden cardiac arrest while jogging during a physical education class at Palms Middle School. Although the school had a defibrillator in the main office, the teachers were unaware of its presence. Despite being trained to use a defibrillator, the teachers could not utilize it, leading to Tillinghast's death. His father sued the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and several employees, alleging negligence for failing to inform the teachers about the defibrillator.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County heard the case, where the jury focused on whether Tillinghast's latent heart defect would have been fatal even if the teachers had known about the defibrillator. The jury found the school district negligent and awarded Tillinghast's father $15 million in damages. The jury exonerated the school principal, Dr. Derek Moriuchi, from negligence.The LAUSD appealed to the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, arguing that the trial court erred in giving a specific jury instruction (CACI No. 423) related to public entity liability for failure to perform a mandatory duty. The appellate court found that the school district had forfeited its objections to this instruction by not raising the issue during the trial. Additionally, the court noted that the school district had conceded mistakes were made regarding the defibrillator's availability and training.The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence supported the jury's verdict and that the school district's failure to inform the teachers about the defibrillator constituted negligence. The court awarded costs to the respondent, Tillinghast's father. View "Tillinghast v. L.A. Unified School District" on Justia Law

A man was injured in an accident outside city limits and sued a city and an emergency-responder employee for negligently providing assistance and aggravating his injuries. The city and employee offered the man $7,500 to settle the lawsuit, which he did not accept. They also moved for summary judgment, arguing that they could not be sued because AS 09.65.070(d)(4) does not allow lawsuits based on the “gratuitous extension of municipal services” beyond city limits. The superior court granted summary judgment in their favor, ruling that their actions were gratuitous because they were under no legal obligation to take them. The court also granted attorney’s fees to the city and employee based on a court rule that requires a party to pay the other side’s legal fees if the party rejected an offer of judgment to settle the case that was more favorable than the judgment the party ultimately received.The man appealed, arguing that the city’s emergency response was not gratuitous because he was billed a mileage fee for the ambulance service. He also argued that the city and employee were not entitled to attorney’s fees because their pretrial offer of judgment was invalid.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. The court held that AS 09.65.070(d)(4) bars the lawsuit because the city and employee’s actions were gratuitous, meaning they were performed without legal obligation and without charging more than the standard fee. The court also held that the offer of judgment was valid and that the superior court did not err in awarding attorney’s fees to the city and employee. The court affirmed the superior court’s grant of summary judgment and the award of attorney’s fees. View "Rochon v. City of Nome" on Justia Law

Ty Whitehead suffered a serious head injury during a bicycle training ride for a charity fundraiser due to a large pothole on Skyline Boulevard in Oakland. Whitehead alleged that the City of Oakland breached its statutory duty to maintain a safe roadway. Prior to the ride, Whitehead signed a release and waiver of liability, which included a provision discharging the City from any liability for negligence.The Alameda County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, holding that the release was valid and enforceable, thus barring Whitehead’s claim. The court reasoned that the release did not affect the public interest, relying on the multifactor test from Tunkl v. Regents of University of California. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, also relying on the Tunkl framework.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and concluded that the release was against public policy under Civil Code section 1668, which prohibits contracts that exempt a party from responsibility for their own fraud, willful injury, or violation of law. The court held that an agreement to exculpate a party for future violations of a statutory duty designed to protect public safety is unenforceable. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the City to argue the doctrine of primary assumption of risk on remand. View "Whitehead v. City of Oakland" on Justia Law