Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

David Katleski, an experienced golfer, was struck by an errant golf ball while competing in a tournament at Cazenovia Golf Club. The accident occurred during a "shotgun start" tournament, where players tee off simultaneously from different holes. Katleski was hit in the eye by a ball from another player teeing off from a nearby hole. He filed a negligence action against the golf club, claiming the course was negligently designed and operated, particularly pointing to the placement of a tee box that increased the risk of such accidents.The Supreme Court denied the golf club's motion for summary judgment, finding that there was a triable issue of fact regarding whether the course's design unreasonably enhanced the risk of being struck by a golf ball. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to the golf club. The court emphasized Katleski's experience and awareness of the course layout, concluding that the design did not expose him to risks beyond those inherent in the sport of golf. Katleski appealed to the Court of Appeals.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the primary assumption of risk doctrine precluded Katleski's negligence claim. The court found that being struck by a mishit golf ball is an inherent risk of the game, and there was no evidence that the course's design unreasonably enhanced this risk.In a related case, Mary Galante was injured in a parking lot at a golf course before she began playing. The Appellate Division had applied the primary assumption of risk doctrine to dismiss her claim. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the doctrine did not apply because Galante was not participating in a protected athletic or recreational activity at the time of her injury. The case was remitted for further proceedings. View "Katleski v Cazenovia Golf Club, Inc." on Justia Law

Cristina Balan, an automotive design engineer, filed a defamation lawsuit against Tesla, Inc. and Elon Musk, alleging that Tesla made defamatory statements about her, including accusations of theft, after an article about her was published in the Huffington Post. Tesla moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement in Balan's employment contract. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington partially granted Tesla's motion, compelling arbitration for part of the defamation claim. Balan then amended her arbitration demand to include a defamation claim against Musk.The Western District of Washington initially denied Tesla's motion to compel arbitration in part, but the Ninth Circuit reversed this decision, ruling that the entire defamation claim was subject to arbitration. Consequently, the district court dismissed the case. The arbitrator applied California law and dismissed Balan's defamation claims against Tesla and Musk based on the statute of limitations, issuing an award in favor of Tesla and Musk.Tesla and Musk petitioned the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to confirm the arbitration award. The district court granted the petition, confirming the award. Balan appealed, arguing that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the award.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration award. The Ninth Circuit cited the Supreme Court's decision in Badgerow v. Walters, which prohibits looking past the face of a petition under 9 U.S.C. § 9 to establish jurisdiction. Since Tesla's petition to confirm a zero-dollar award did not meet the amount in controversy requirement, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "TESLA MOTORS V. BALAN" 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), alleging 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.Family Services demurred to the complaint, arguing 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. The trial court overruled the demurrer. 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 Court of Appeal of the State of California, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that a claim for derivative liability against a principal is considered “litigated to finality” under section 340.1, subdivision (q), if a previous suit against the agent for the same damages based on the same operative facts was dismissed with prejudice. Consequently, the court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to sustain the demurrer but allowed Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to potentially allege new facts that could support a cause of action against Family Services. View "Doe 3 v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

Darnell Hairston was seriously injured while operating machinery at Zeeland Farm Soya, Inc. He sued Zeeland Farm Services, Inc. (ZFS) and an employee, later adding Specialty Industries, Inc. as a defendant for negligence and products liability. ZFS settled, but the case against Specialty Industries proceeded to trial, resulting in a jury awarding Hairston over $13 million. Specialty Industries had insurance policies with Burlington Insurance Company and Evanston Insurance Company, which paid their policy limits, leaving a significant portion of the judgment unpaid.The Ottawa Circuit Court denied Hairston and Specialty Industries' motion for supplemental proceedings to pursue a bad-faith refusal to settle claim against the insurers, suggesting they file a separate lawsuit. Hairston then served writs of garnishment on the insurers, which the trial court quashed, stating there was no judgment of bad faith. The trial court also imposed sanctions on Hairston for filing the writs.The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision to quash the writs, relying on the precedent set in Rutter v King, which allowed bad-faith refusal to settle claims to be litigated through garnishment. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the sanctions against Hairston.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that unresolved claims of bad-faith refusal to settle are not subject to garnishment under MCR 3.101(G)(1) because they are not sufficiently liquidated. The Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in relying on Rutter, which was decided before the current court rules were adopted. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Hairston v. Lku" on Justia Law

Ronald Rubin filed a lawsuit naming Kimberly Grippa as part of a criminal enterprise. His lawyer sent allegedly defamatory letters to state officials, asking them to investigate the alleged criminal enterprise and included copies of the complaint. Grippa sued Rubin for defamation, claiming the letters harmed her reputation and professional standing. Rubin moved for summary judgment, arguing the letters were protected by Florida’s absolute and qualified litigation privileges and that he could not be held vicariously liable for his lawyer’s actions.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida denied Rubin’s motion for summary judgment on all grounds. The court found that the letters were not protected by the absolute litigation privilege because they were sent outside the litigation process and included additional statements beyond those in the complaint. The court also determined that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the statements were made with express malice, precluding the qualified litigation privilege. Lastly, the court rejected Rubin’s vicarious liability argument, suggesting that Rubin directed his lawyer’s actions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the denial of Florida’s absolute litigation privilege is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine but lacked jurisdiction to consider the denial of the qualified litigation privilege or the vicarious liability issue. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the absolute litigation privilege, concluding that the letters were sent outside the judicial process and included additional defamatory statements. The court dismissed the appeal regarding the qualified litigation privilege and vicarious liability for lack of jurisdiction. View "Grippa v. Rubin" on Justia Law

A personal representative of a deceased resident's estate filed a complaint against a hospital district and its associated rehabilitation center, alleging negligence and vicarious liability for injuries suffered by the resident due to physical abuse by a temporary certified nursing assistant (CNA). The hospital district denied liability, claiming the CNA was an independent contractor. After a six-day trial, the jury found the CNA was an agent of the hospital district, and her negligence was a proximate cause of the resident's damages. The jury apportioned fault between the CNA and the hospital district, awarding $660,000 in damages to the estate.The district court reduced the damages by the percentage of fault attributed to the CNA, leading to an appeal by the personal representative, who argued the reduction was contrary to Wyoming law and inconsistent with the jury's verdict. The hospital district cross-appealed, asserting the district court should not have allowed the jury to consider whether the CNA was an agent and should have granted its motion for judgment as a matter of law.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and found the district court did not err in denying the hospital district's motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court held there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in favor of the personal representative on both direct and vicarious liability claims. The court also found the jury instructions adequately informed the jury of the applicable law and did not cause confusion.However, the Supreme Court determined the district court erred in reducing the damages. The jury found the CNA's conduct was negligent and that she was an agent of the hospital district, making the hospital district vicariously liable for her actions. The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case with instructions to enter a judgment for the full $660,000 in favor of the estate. View "Campbell County Hospital District v. Elsner" on Justia Law

Ethel Barry Masters filed a petition against Jacob Dawson in 2019, alleging replevin, conversion, and unjust enrichment after Dawson refused to surrender possession of four vehicles that belonged to Masters' deceased long-term companion. Dawson disputed ownership and obstructed the legal process, including failing to respond to requests for admissions and barricading the vehicles to prevent towing. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Masters, ordering Dawson to surrender the vehicles, which he did not comply with. Dawson's attorney withdrew due to ethical concerns, and subsequent attorneys also withdrew due to Dawson's failure to pay legal fees.The Circuit Court of St. Louis County scheduled multiple trial dates, which were postponed due to Dawson's actions, including retaining new attorneys and filing motions for continuance. Dawson failed to appear for a pretrial conference, leading the circuit court to cancel the jury trial and enter a default judgment in favor of Masters, awarding her $83,035.41 in actual damages and an equal amount in punitive damages. Dawson's conduct was deemed contemptuous, justifying punitive damages to deter similar behavior.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case and found that Dawson's constitutional claims regarding the right to a jury trial were unpreserved because he did not adequately raise them in his motion for a new trial. The court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by sanctioning Dawson due to his pattern of obstructive behavior. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court's judgment, upholding the damages awarded to Masters. View "Masters v. Dawson" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Kandi Terry-Smith and Roy A. Smith, Jr., filed a complaint against Mountain View Hospital (MVH) and Idaho Falls Community Hospital (IFCH) alleging medical malpractice after Kandi suffered an injury while a patient at MVH. The complaint was filed on March 11, 2022, and a second, identical complaint was filed on September 8, 2022. The first case was dismissed for inactivity, but the district court granted an extension for service of process. The process server, Tony Mares, filed an affidavit claiming he served MVH, but deficiencies were later found.In the district court, MVH moved to dismiss the second case as time-barred and the first case for insufficient service of process. The district court denied the Smiths' motion to consolidate the cases and dismissed the second case. The district court granted MVH’s motion to dismiss the first case for insufficient service of process, finding that the Smiths failed to properly serve MVH. The Smiths' subsequent motions for reconsideration, to amend the complaint, and for additional extensions were denied. The district court also denied the Smiths' I.R.C.P. 60(b) motion for relief from the order denying reconsideration and judgment.The Idaho Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the Smiths failed to show good cause for the failure to timely serve MVH and did not exercise due diligence. The court also found no excusable neglect and determined that the Smiths' attorney's reliance on the process server’s affidavit was unreasonable. The court denied MVH’s request for attorney fees in the district court due to the lack of a cross-appeal but granted attorney fees and costs on appeal, finding the Smiths' appeal frivolous and without foundation. View "Smith v. Mountain View Hospital, LLC" on Justia Law

Andrew J. Scarborough, as the administrator of the estate of Timothy John Chumney, filed a lawsuit in the Montgomery Circuit Court against Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Deora Johnson, and Shari Barfield. The case involved allegations of negligence and medical malpractice following Chumney's suicide while incarcerated. The defendants initially did not object to the venue in their Rule 12 motions or answers. However, two years after the trial was first set, they moved to amend their answers to raise the defense of improper venue and filed a motion to transfer the case to Limestone Circuit Court. The Montgomery Circuit Court agreed and transferred the case.Scarborough petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the defendants had waived their defense of improper venue by not raising it earlier. The defendants contended that the transfer was mandatory under § 6-5-546 of the Alabama Medical Liability Act (AMLA), which they claimed allowed for a venue change at any time before trial.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and determined that the defendants had indeed waived their right to challenge the venue under Rule 12(h)(1)(A) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure by not including the defense in their initial motions. The court also clarified that § 6-5-546 of the AMLA did not apply because Scarborough did not allege that the acts or omissions occurred in more than one county. Therefore, the general timing provisions of Rule 12(h)(1) remained applicable.The Supreme Court of Alabama granted Scarborough's petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Montgomery Circuit Court to vacate its order transferring the case to Limestone Circuit Court. View "In re: Scarborough v. Wexford Health Sources" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Lorraine Bellmar, as the personal representative of her deceased husband Harry Bellmar's estate, filed a medical malpractice and wrongful death action against Dr. Robert Moore and his medical practice. Harry Bellmar had been Dr. Moore's patient for approximately ten years, suffering from morbid obesity, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and high cholesterol. In December 2006, an abnormal EKG was performed, but Dr. Moore did not order any follow-up cardiac testing over the next ten years. Harry Bellmar died in June 2016 from cardiac arrhythmia.The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the seven-year statute of repose under G. L. c. 260, § 4, because the claim was based on the 2006 EKG, which occurred more than seven years before the filing of the lawsuit in December 2017. The Appeals Court affirmed the decision.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the statute of repose does not shield later negligent acts if the medical malpractice claim is not predicated on acts or omissions that took place more than seven years before the filing of the claim. The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Dr. Moore's treatment of the decedent within the seven-year period was negligent, independent of the 2006 EKG. The case was remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings. View "Bellmar v. Moore" on Justia Law