Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Crystal Walcott Spill's estate and beneficiaries filed a wrongful death suit against several doctors, including Dr. Steven Paganessi and his medical group, alleging negligence during a surgical procedure that led to Spill's death. Spill, who had lupus, was under the care of Dr. Jenny Diep, a New York-based rheumatologist, and Dr. Jacob Markovitz, a New Jersey-based gynecologist. Before the surgery, Dr. Diep increased Spill's blood pressure medication dosage and recommended she see a nephrologist. Spill saw Dr. Holly Koncicki, a New York-based nephrologist, who conducted lab tests but did not receive the results before the surgery. Spill suffered a cardiac event during the procedure and died the same day. The lab results, available after her death, showed critically elevated creatinine and potassium levels.The trial court dismissed Dr. Diep from the case due to lack of personal jurisdiction and denied the defendants' motion to include her on the verdict form for fault allocation. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that an out-of-state individual over whom New Jersey courts lack personal jurisdiction cannot be included for fault allocation.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, with modifications. The Court held that an individual outside New Jersey's jurisdiction is not a "party" under the Comparative Negligence Act (CNA) for fault allocation purposes. However, such an individual may be considered a joint tortfeasor under the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law (JTCL), allowing defendants to seek contribution in a relevant jurisdiction if a judgment is rendered against them. The Court did not agree with the Appellate Division's view that the model civil jury instruction on causation mitigates any unfairness to the defendants. View "Estate of Spill v. Markovitz" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who were allegedly sexually assaulted or harassed by Uber drivers, filed individual lawsuits against Uber Technologies, Inc. across various districts. They claimed Uber failed to take reasonable measures to prevent such misconduct, asserting negligence, misrepresentation, products liability, and vicarious liability. Plaintiffs argued that Uber was aware of the issue since at least 2014 but did not implement adequate safety measures, such as proper background checks, emergency notifications, and effective responses to complaints.The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) centralized these cases in the Northern District of California for coordinated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Uber opposed the centralization, arguing that their terms of use included a collective action waiver that precluded such a transfer and that the cases did not share sufficient common factual questions to warrant centralization. The JPML found that the cases did involve common factual questions and that centralization would eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve resources.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed Uber's petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the JPML's order. The court held that Uber had not demonstrated that the JPML committed a clear error of law or a clear abuse of discretion. The court found that the JPML acted within its broad discretion in determining that the cases presented common questions of fact and that centralization would promote the just and efficient conduct of the actions. The court also rejected Uber's argument regarding the collective action waiver, stating that Section 1407 grants the JPML the authority to centralize cases regardless of private agreements to the contrary. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit denied Uber's petition for a writ of mandamus. View "UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. V. UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION" on Justia Law

Misty Coleman alleges that she fell and broke her ankle after slipping on a wet shower floor in a county jail. She pursued constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and negligence claims under Ohio law against the county, corrections officers, and medical personnel. Coleman claimed that the slippery shower violated the Due Process Clause and that a county policy or custom was behind her poor medical care. She also questioned whether the county could invoke state-law immunity from her negligence claim at the pleading stage.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed all claims against all parties. The court found that Coleman failed to allege a plausible constitutional violation regarding the slippery shower and did not connect the inadequate medical care to a county policy or custom. The court also held that Ohio law granted immunity to Hamilton County on the negligence claim. The court allowed Coleman to conduct limited discovery to identify unnamed officers and nurses, but her subsequent amended complaint was dismissed as it was filed outside the statute of limitations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court's dismissal, holding that Coleman’s claims accrued on the date of her accident and that her amended complaint did not relate back to the original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The court also found that Coleman did not meet the requirements for equitable tolling, as she did not allege facts showing that she was intentionally misled or tricked into missing the deadline. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Coleman’s complaint. View "Coleman v. Hamilton County Bd. of County Commissioners" on Justia Law

Marlene Banwart and her husband Richard filed a medical malpractice lawsuit in 2020 against Neurosurgery of North Iowa, P.C., Dr. David Beck, and Dr. Thomas Getta. Marlene had undergone a lumbar laminectomy performed by Dr. Beck in July 2018, followed by severe postoperative pain and complications, including an epidural hematoma that required emergency surgery. The plaintiffs alleged negligence in the surgery and postoperative care by Dr. Beck and Dr. Getta.The Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' action as time-barred, concluding that the Iowa Supreme Court's emergency supervisory orders tolling the statute of limitations during the COVID-19 pandemic were invalid. However, the court found that the plaintiffs had substantially complied with Iowa's certificate of merit affidavit statute, despite the certificates not being signed under oath or penalty of perjury. Both parties appealed these rulings.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and bypassed the statute of limitations issue, focusing on the cross-appeal regarding the certificate of merit. The court held that the plaintiffs' certificates did not substantially comply with Iowa Code section 147.140 because they were not signed under oath or penalty of perjury. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' claims that the statute was void for vagueness and that the defendants had waived their rights by delaying their challenge. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's ruling on the certificates of merit and remanded the case for entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Banwart v. Neurosurgery of North Iowa, P.C." on Justia Law

Joyce Pates filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Community Health Systems, Inc. (CHSI), Affinity Hospital, LLC, d/b/a Grandview Medical Center, Dr. John Kirchner, and Southlake Orthopaedics Sports Medicine and Spine Center, P.C. Pates alleged that after injuring her ankle and undergoing surgery performed by Dr. Kirchner at Grandview Medical Center, she experienced complications leading to an infection and ultimately the amputation of her right leg.The Jefferson Circuit Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, which argued that Pates's claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations under the Alabama Medical Liability Act (AMLA). The court reasoned that Pates's injury began when she was informed of the need for amputation, thus starting the statute of limitations from that point.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and determined that Pates's claims were indeed barred by the AMLA's statute of limitations. The court found that Pates's injuries, including signs of infection and the need for hardware removal, were evident by November 2020. Therefore, the statute of limitations began at that time, and Pates's complaint filed in February 2023 was outside the two-year limit. The court granted the petitions for writs of mandamus, directing the trial court to dismiss Pates's claims against the defendants. View "Ex parte Affinity Hospital, LLC" on Justia Law

John McKnight filed a lawsuit against Anthony Love seeking damages from a vehicular accident. On November 13, 2019, both parties were driving on I-20 in DeKalb County when traffic slowed, and McKnight stopped his vehicle. Love, driving behind McKnight, failed to stop in time and collided with McKnight's vehicle. McKnight sustained injuries and his truck was damaged. Love was cited for following too closely and pleaded guilty to the offense. McKnight sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as litigation expenses under OCGA § 13-6-11, alleging that Love acted in bad faith by being distracted, possibly using his cell phone at the time of the accident.The trial court denied Love's motion for partial summary judgment on the claim for litigation expenses, finding sufficient evidence to create a jury question regarding bad faith. The evidence included Love's cell phone records and McKnight's testimony suggesting Love was distracted. The trial court also denied Love's motion for summary judgment on claims of negligence per se but granted it on claims for punitive damages and stubborn litigiousness. Love did not challenge the negligence per se rulings, and McKnight's appeal on punitive damages and stubborn litigiousness was rejected by the Court of Appeals.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and determined that the Court of Appeals erred in its analysis. The Court held that mere violations of traffic laws do not constitute bad faith under OCGA § 13-6-11. Bad faith requires intentional wrongdoing or reckless disregard of known harmful consequences, which is more than mere negligence. The Court found insufficient evidence of bad faith to support a claim for litigation expenses and reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment affirming the trial court's denial of Love's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of bad faith litigation expenses. View "LOVE v. MCKNIGHT" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Barbara Politsch obtained a default judgment of approximately $175,000 against Metroplaza Partners, LLC in a premises liability case. However, Metroplaza had sold the property in 2005, over a year before Politsch's injury, and was not served with the summons and complaint. Metroplaza learned of the default judgment in January 2014 but did not act on it based on their counsel's advice. In February 2022, Politsch, with new counsel, renewed the judgment and sought to enforce it. Metroplaza then moved to set aside the default judgment, which the trial court granted under its equitable powers.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Metroplaza's motion to set aside the default judgment, finding that Metroplaza had a meritorious defense, was never properly served, and had an excuse for not acting sooner due to reliance on their attorney's lack of advice. The court also noted the strong preference for cases to be decided on their merits and concerns about potential injustice.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling. It agreed that Metroplaza demonstrated a meritorious defense, a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense initially, and due diligence in seeking to set aside the default judgment once it was discovered. The appellate court emphasized the policy favoring decisions on the merits and the exceptional circumstances of the case, including the fact that Metroplaza was not the correct party to be sued. View "Politsch v. Metroplaza Partners, LLC" on Justia Law

Julene and William Dodd sued their attorney, Rory Jones, for legal malpractice after he missed the statute of limitations deadline for filing their medical malpractice lawsuit. The Dodds needed to prove that their original medical malpractice case had merit and that they would have won if Jones had filed on time. However, the district court struck the testimony of the Dodds’ experts, which was key to establishing the viability of their medical malpractice claim. The court found that the disclosures were untimely and that the experts failed to properly establish knowledge of the local standard of care, a foundational requirement of Idaho law. As a result, the Dodds’ legal malpractice claim was dismissed, and the court granted summary judgment in favor of Jones.The Dodds appealed to the Supreme Court of Idaho, arguing that the district court erred by ruling that Jones was not judicially estopped from arguing that no medical malpractice occurred and by excluding their expert testimony. They also raised claims of judicial bias. The Supreme Court of Idaho found that Jones could not be judicially estopped from claiming that no medical malpractice occurred because he was not a party in the original medical malpractice case but was representing the Dodds. The court also upheld the district court’s exclusion of the Dodds’ expert testimony, finding that the experts did not demonstrate familiarity with the local standard of care in Nampa, Idaho, at the time of the alleged malpractice.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that the Dodds failed to establish an essential element of their legal malpractice case. The court also awarded attorney fees to Jones under Idaho Appellate Rule 11.2, finding that the appeal was pursued frivolously and without foundation, and sanctioned the Dodds’ attorney, Angelo Rosa, for his conduct during the appeal. View "Dodd v. Jones" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Kristina and Stephen Polak, and defendants, Felipe Ramirez-Diaz and Yesica Sanchez de Ramirez, are neighbors in St. Albans. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendants alleging defamation, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) after defendants allegedly made false reports to police and the court accusing plaintiffs of criminal activity. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants falsely reported an assault and a gun threat, leading to anti-stalking complaints and an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) petition against Kristina Polak, which were ultimately denied. Plaintiffs also alleged that defendants repeated these false claims to neighbors and community members.The Superior Court, Franklin Unit, Civil Division, granted defendants’ special motion to strike plaintiffs’ claims under Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute, concluding that defendants’ statements were protected petitioning activity in connection with public issues. The court also imposed a discovery sanction on plaintiffs for failing to respond to defendants’ interrogatories and requests for production, prohibiting plaintiffs from introducing evidence that should have been disclosed. The court subsequently awarded summary judgment to defendants on the remaining defamation claim, noting plaintiffs’ failure to identify specific defamatory statements or produce evidence of actual harm.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court erred in granting the special motion to strike. The Supreme Court held that defendants’ statements were not made in connection with a public issue, as they concerned a private dispute between neighbors and did not affect a large number of people or involve a matter of widespread public interest. The Supreme Court reversed the order granting the motion to strike and remanded for further proceedings on the stricken claims. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s imposition of the discovery sanction and the award of summary judgment on the remaining defamation claim, finding no abuse of discretion. View "Polak v. Ramirez-Diaz" on Justia Law

Marleny Rivas filed a lawsuit against Derek Brownell and Lindsey Wessel to recover damages for injuries she sustained in a car accident on August 4, 2018. Rivas filed her lawsuit on October 16, 2020, beyond the two-year statute of limitations but within a seventy-six-day tolling period established by a supreme court supervisory order due to the COVID-19 pandemic.The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, arguing that the lawsuit was time-barred as it was filed beyond the two-year statute of limitations and that the supreme court's tolling provision violated the separation of powers and their due process rights. The Iowa District Court for Polk County granted the summary judgment, concluding that the supreme court lacked the authority to toll the statute of limitations, and thus Rivas's lawsuit was untimely. Rivas appealed the decision.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and addressed whether the supreme court had the emergency powers to toll the statute of limitations during the pandemic. The court held that the tolling provision in the supervisory order was within the court's constitutional authority to exercise supervisory and administrative control over the court system. The court found that the tolling provision was a valid response to the unprecedented public health emergency and did not violate the separation of powers or due process rights of the defendants. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Rivas v. Brownell" on Justia Law