Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Yadira Ordonez, individually and as mother and next friend of her minor daughter, S.C.O., sued Capitol Farmers Market, Inc. (CFMI) in the Montgomery Circuit Court seeking damages for injuries S.C.O. sustained from hot soup purchased at Capitol International Market. CFMI moved for summary judgment, claiming it did not operate the market. Ordonez opposed the motion and requested more time for discovery. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of CFMI, and Ordonez appealed.The trial court entered summary judgment for CFMI, finding that CFMI did not operate the grocery store or the deli where the incident occurred. Ordonez argued that more discovery was needed, particularly the deposition of CFMI's owner, John Yim, to test the veracity of his statements. The trial court denied Ordonez's motion for a continuance to conduct further discovery and granted summary judgment to CFMI.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and found that the trial court exceeded its discretion in denying Ordonez's motion for a continuance under Rule 56(f) to take Yim's deposition. The court noted that the health department records and other evidence raised questions about CFMI's assertions that it had no employees and did not operate the grocery store or deli. The court concluded that Yim's deposition was critical to Ordonez's opposition to the summary judgment motion. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ordonez v. Capitol Farmers Market, Inc." on Justia Law

In December 2021, Officer Shelton Davis of the Montgomery Police Department, while pursuing a fleeing suspect, collided with Madilyn Shuford's vehicle at an intersection in Montgomery. Officer Davis was responding to a woman's plea for help, who claimed a man was trying to kill her. The suspect, Eugene Osborne Jr., fled in a vehicle, prompting Officer Davis to pursue him with activated lights and sirens. During the pursuit, Officer Davis slowed down at a red light but collided with Shuford's vehicle when she pulled into the intersection.Shuford sued the City of Montgomery and Officer Davis, alleging negligence and wanton conduct, and claimed the City was vicariously liable. The City and Officer Davis moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity under § 6-5-338, Ala. Code 1975, and Ex parte Cranman. They provided evidence, including Officer Davis's affidavit and body camera footage, showing he was performing his duties with activated lights and sirens. Shuford opposed, arguing Officer Davis did not use proper signals and took unreasonable risks.The Montgomery Circuit Court denied the summary judgment motion without explanation. The City and Officer Davis petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus to vacate the denial and grant summary judgment based on immunity.The Supreme Court of Alabama granted the petition, holding that Officer Davis was entitled to immunity as he was performing his law enforcement duties and exercising judgment. The court found no substantial evidence from Shuford to refute this. Consequently, the City was also entitled to immunity. The trial court was directed to enter summary judgment in favor of the City and Officer Davis. View "Shuford v. City of Montgomery" on Justia Law

Mara Lindsey was involved in a car accident where she was rear-ended by Carlos Pantoja, resulting in personal injuries. Lindsey sought compensation for her medical expenses and, after settling with Pantoja’s insurer for his policy limit of $50,000, she filed a claim with her own insurer, State Farm, under her underinsured motorist (UIM) policy. Dissatisfied with State Farm’s settlement offer of $689.58, Lindsey sued State Farm under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) for declarations regarding Pantoja’s liability, her damages, and her entitlement to UIM benefits. She also sued State Farm and its claims adjuster for Insurance Code violations, alleging bad faith in handling her claim.The trial court denied State Farm’s motions to abate the extracontractual claims and to quash the deposition notice of its corporate representative. The court of appeals denied State Farm’s mandamus petitions without substantive explanation. State Farm then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for mandamus relief.The Supreme Court of Texas held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying State Farm’s motions. The court ruled that extracontractual claims must be abated until the insured obtains a favorable judgment on the UIM coverage, as these claims are dependent on the right to receive UIM benefits. The court also held that discovery on extracontractual matters is improper before establishing entitlement to UIM benefits. Additionally, the court found that State Farm had demonstrated that the deposition of its corporate representative was not proportional to the needs of the case, given the lack of personal knowledge and the burden of the proposed discovery.The Supreme Court of Texas conditionally granted State Farm’s petition for writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to vacate its previous orders and grant State Farm’s motions to abate the extracontractual claims and to quash the deposition notice. View "IN RE STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY" on Justia Law

A Colorado real estate investment trust sued a Texas hedge fund and its employees for damages caused by an allegedly defamatory article published under a pseudonym. The claims were dismissed in Colorado federal court for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trust then sued in Texas state court. The defendants moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and for summary judgment based on collateral estoppel. The trial court granted both motions.The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas reversed the trial court's decision. It held that the trial court lacked authority to grant the TCPA motion after it was overruled by operation of law and that the defendants failed to conclusively establish that collateral estoppel barred the claims. The appellate court determined that the Colorado court's findings on personal jurisdiction did not preclude the Texas claims and that the addition of new defendants in Texas further demonstrated that the issues were not identical.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case. It agreed with the appellate court that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on their collateral estoppel defense. However, it found that the appellate court erred in holding that the order granting the TCPA motion was void. The Supreme Court of Texas concluded that the trial court's error in granting the TCPA motion outside the statutory deadline was harmless because it occurred within the time frame in which the defendants could have appealed the denial by operation of law. The case was remanded to the appellate court to address the TCPA motion on its merits. View "FIRST SABREPOINT CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. v. FARMLAND PARTNERS INC." on Justia Law

A railroad worker, Phillip Morgan, committed suicide after experiencing months of alleged harassment by his supervisor at Union Pacific Railroad Company. His wife, Kera Morgan, acting as the administrator of his estate, filed a lawsuit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), seeking wrongful death damages. She claimed that the harassment and stress from his job led to Phillip's emotional distress and eventual suicide.The Iowa District Court for Polk County granted summary judgment in favor of Union Pacific, concluding that Phillip's injuries were emotional and not tied to a physical impact or near physical harm, thus falling outside the scope of FELA. The court held that FELA did not cover emotional injuries unless there was a physical impact or the worker was in imminent danger of physical harm.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that under the precedent set by the United States Supreme Court in Consolidated Rail v. Gottshall, FELA incorporates common law limits on compensable injuries. The court concluded that Phillip's emotional injuries, which led to his suicide, did not meet the "zone of danger" test established in Gottshall. This test requires that the worker must have been in immediate risk of physical impact or harm to recover for emotional injuries under FELA. Since Phillip's injuries were purely emotional and not tied to any physical impact or imminent threat of physical harm, the court ruled that FELA did not provide coverage for his case. View "Estate of Morgan v. Union Pacific Railroad Company" on Justia Law

In 2003, Sarah Ramey underwent a urethral dilation performed by Dr. Edward Dunne, which resulted in severe pain and subsequent debilitating medical conditions. Over the next fourteen years, Ramey sought medical advice from numerous doctors to determine the cause of her ailments. In 2017, Drs. Mario Castellanos and Lee Arnold Dellon linked her symptoms to the 2003 procedure. Ramey filed a lawsuit against Dr. Dunne and Foxhall Urology in 2019.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia held a bifurcated trial to determine if Ramey’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The jury found that Ramey failed to file her suit within the three-year statute of limitations. Ramey then filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, for a new trial, arguing that the trial court erred in its rulings and jury instructions. The trial court denied her motion.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not err in denying Ramey’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, as there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Ramey had received medical opinions linking her symptoms to the urethral dilation before 2017. The court also found that Ramey waived her claim regarding the jury instructions by affirmatively agreeing to them during the trial.However, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in not granting a new trial based on the improper invocation of inquiry notice by appellees’ counsel during rebuttal closing arguments. The court found that the trial court’s corrective instruction was insufficient to mitigate the prejudicial impact of the improper argument. Consequently, the case was remanded for a new trial. View "Ramey v. Foxhall Urology, Chartered" on Justia Law

Two former police officers, Mark Zukowski and Joshua Ruggiero, were injured in the line of duty and subsequently awarded both accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits and workers' compensation benefits. The ADR benefits exceeded the workers' compensation benefits, resulting in an offset of the latter. The key issue in this case was whether attorney’s fees should be calculated before or after applying the statutory offset under Maryland’s Workers’ Compensation Act.The Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission awarded Zukowski and Ruggiero workers' compensation benefits, but these were largely offset by their ADR benefits. The Commission calculated attorney’s fees based on the reduced, post-offset amount of workers' compensation benefits. Zukowski and Ruggiero argued that attorney’s fees should be calculated based on the total award before applying the offset, contending that the terms "compensation" and "benefits" in the relevant statutes should be interpreted differently.The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County affirmed the Commission’s decision, agreeing that attorney’s fees should be calculated after applying the offset. The court found no distinction between "compensation" and "benefits" in this context and held that attorney’s fees are a lien on the compensation actually payable to the claimant.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that the terms "compensation" and "benefits" are interchangeable in this context, meaning that attorney’s fees should be calculated based on the amount of workers' compensation benefits payable after applying the statutory offset. The Court emphasized that the attorney’s fees are a lien on the compensation awarded, which is the amount actually payable to the claimant after the offset. The Court also rejected the argument that this interpretation was unconstitutional, noting that attorneys voluntarily enter into contingency fee arrangements and are aware of the statutory framework governing such fees. View "Zukowski v. Anne Arundel Cnty." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Zackary Diamond was injured by a punch from a third party during an altercation in the restricted pit area at Bakersfield Speedway. He alleged that the defendants, Scott Schweitzer, Schweitzer Motorsports Productions, and Christian Schweitzer, were negligent in providing security, responding to the altercation, and undertaking rescue efforts. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Diamond's claims were barred by a release and waiver of liability form he signed to enter the pit area. The trial court granted the motion, finding the release clear, unequivocal, and broad in scope, covering the negligent conduct alleged.The Superior Court of Kern County granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the release included risks related to racing activities and that the assault was such a risk. The court interpreted the release as covering the type of event that occurred, thus barring Diamond's negligence claims.On appeal, Diamond contended that the release was unenforceable because the injury-producing act was not reasonably related to the purpose of the release, which he described as observing the race from the pit area. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, concluded that the release met the requirements for enforceability: it was clear, unambiguous, and explicit in expressing the intent to release all liability for Diamond's injury; the alleged acts of negligence were reasonably related to the purpose of the release; and the release did not contravene public policy. The court also found that the defendants adequately raised a complete defense based on the signed release and that Diamond failed to rebut this defense. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Diamond v. Schweitzer" on Justia Law

In 2018, a $200 million mixed-use development project at Louisiana State University experienced issues with its fire-protection sprinkler systems, which began to crack and leak. Allied World National Assurance Company, which paid over $10 million for system replacements, sued Nisus Corporation in 2021, alleging that Nisus falsely represented its product's compatibility with the pipe material, leading to the damage.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted summary judgment in favor of Nisus, concluding that Allied's claims were time-barred under Louisiana law. The court found that while Provident, the insured party, did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the cause of the damage, RISE Residential, Provident's agent, had constructive knowledge of the cause by November 2019. This knowledge was imputed to Provident, starting the prescription period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that RISE Residential's constructive knowledge of the sprinkler system issues, which was imputed to Provident, triggered the running of the prescription period well before July 23, 2020. The court also found that Nisus did not prevent Allied from timely availing itself of its causes of action, as a reasonable inquiry by RISE Residential would have uncovered the necessary information. Therefore, Allied's claims were prescribed, and the summary judgment in favor of Nisus was affirmed. View "Allied World National v. Nisus" on Justia Law

Mario Mancini, an inmate at FCI Sandstone, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for medical malpractice. Mancini alleged that the government caused him permanent injury by negligently delaying necessary medical care. He experienced neck and back pain from a prior workplace injury, which worsened in 2017. Despite reporting increasing pain and numbness, his MRI and subsequent surgery were delayed. Mancini claimed these delays resulted in permanent nerve damage, loss of strength, muscle atrophy, numbness, and pain.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Mancini's FTCA claim. The court found that Mancini's expert affidavit, provided by Dr. Gary Wyard, failed to meet the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 145.682. The affidavit did not adequately define the standard of care, explain how the government deviated from that standard, or establish a causal connection between the delays and Mancini's injuries. The court also excluded Dr. Wyard's testimony under Rule 702 and Daubert, citing factual errors and a lack of methodology in his affidavit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that Dr. Wyard's affidavit did not satisfy the statutory requirements of Minn. Stat. § 145.682. The affidavit lacked specific details about the standard of care and failed to outline a chain of causation between the government's actions and Mancini's injuries. The court also upheld the exclusion of Dr. Wyard's testimony under Rule 702 and Daubert. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice, as Mancini did not correct the deficiencies in the affidavit within the provided safe-harbor period. View "Mancini v. United States" on Justia Law