Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

TruckMax, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Babco Engineering, LLC (collectively, "TruckMax"), petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Jefferson Circuit Court to allow TruckMax to amend its answer in this workers' compensation/wrongful-death action so that TruckMax could assert as a defense that one of the plaintiffs, Latosha Caster-Harris, the wife of the decedent involved in this case, lacked the capacity to pursue claims against TruckMax. The parties agreed that TruckMax's lack-of-capacity defense was an affirmative defense that would be waived if not pleaded. Because the Supreme Court concluded that TruckMax did not establish that the trial court's ruling denying its motion for leave to amend its answer should have been reviewed pursuant to a mandamus petition, it denied the petition. View "Ex parte TruckMax, Inc., and Babco Engineering, LLC." on Justia Law

Appellants– the former secretary-treasurer and president, respectively, of a District Lodge of the International Association of Machinists – appealed the district court’s denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction. They sued the international union, its president, and its general secretary-treasurer. The controversy concerns the suspensions of Appellants’ and the international union’s imposition of a trusteeship on their District Lodge. Appellants’ first amended complaint alleged one count under Title I and five counts under Title III of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (the “LMRDA”). They sought equitable relief along with compensatory and punitive damages. A month after they filed their first amended complaint, they filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court denied the motion. It held that Appellants had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. It also held that the other factors did not favor them.   The DC Circuit affirmed. The court held that Appellants’ request under Title III to end the trusteeship is moot. A case becomes moot when a party obtains the relief they sought. Here, the disputed trusteeship has been lifted. Further, the court explained that Appellants seek to invalidate an officer election. It is impossible to reinstate Appellant as secretary-treasurer or allow the District Lodge to elect new members to other positions unless the court invalidates the officer election that just occurred. Thus, the court rejected the Title I claim. View "Ian Scott-Anderman, et al. v. Robert Martinez, et al." on Justia Law

John and Tammy Sadek appealed orders denying their post-judgment motion and sanctioning their attorney under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11. Jason Weber was a Richland County, North Dakota sheriff’s deputy. Sadek acted as a confidential informant for Weber. Sadek was later found in the Red River with a gunshot wound to his head and a backpack full of rocks tied to his body. Sadek’s parents sued Weber and Richland County alleging Weber deceived Sadek by telling Sadek he faced a lengthy prison sentence. They also alleged Weber negligently caused Sadek’s death by failing to adequately train and protect him. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Weber and Richland County: the misrepresentation underlying the deceit claim was a prediction of a future event and therefore not actionable as deceit as a matter of law; as to the negligence claim, there was no evidence to establish Weber’s conduct was the proximate cause of Sadek’s death. In the first appeal ("Sadek I"), the Sadeks argued a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Weber’s conduct caused Andrew Sadek’s death. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that "the evidence only presents a timeline of events and a request that a jury be allowed to speculate what happened as a result of that string of events." The Court's mandate affirming the dismissal judgment was issued on October 7, 2020. In 2022, the Sadeks filed a “Motion for Summary Judgment,” citing N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) but requested relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56. The Sadeks argued the district court made a mistake by relying on “bad faith” representations by Weber who “successfully hoodwinked [the district court] and obtained a Judgment of Dismissal.” Yet the Sadeks claimed they were entitled to summary judgment because “no triable issue of fact exists as to whether Defendants owed a duty of care to Andrew under the Statute.” The brief was accompanied by a list of signatures “verifying” they agreed with on Supreme Court Justice's dissent in Sadek I. The district court entered an order denying the Sadeks’ post-judgment motion, characterizing it as "baffling and bizarre." After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s orders and granted the Appellees’ motion for sanctions. View "Sadek, et al. v. Weber, et al." on Justia Law

In 2018, Albert Mione (“Mione”) was in a collision while operating his motorcycle. Mione’s motorcycle was insured by Progressive Insurance, under a policy that did not include UM/UIM coverage. Albert and his wife Lisa jointly owned a car, which was insured by Erie Insurance on a single-vehicle policy that included UM/UIM coverage with stacking. Mione’s adult daughter Angela also lived in the couple’s home, and she too owned a car, which Erie insured on a single-vehicle policy (“Angela’s policy”). Both of the Erie policies contained household vehicle exclusions barring UM/UIM coverage for injuries sustained while operating a household vehicle not listed on the policy under which benefits are sought. The courts below held that the exclusions were valid and enforceable, citing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 1998 decision in Eichelman v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 711 A.2d 1006 (Pa. 1998). The Miones, contended that the lower courts erred in applying Eichelman, arguing that the Supreme Court sub silentio overruled that decision in Gallagher v. GEICO Indemnity Co., 201 A.3d 131 (Pa. 2019). The Supreme Court rejected the Miones’ argument, and affirmed. View "Erie Insurance Exch. v. Mione, et al." on Justia Law

A man was shot and killed in his jewelry shop in 1983, and Decedent was sentenced to death for the crime. Thirty years later, Louisiana vacated Decedent’s conviction because new evidence identified the real murderer. After his release from prison, Decedent filed a Section 1983 suit seeking damages from police officers, prosecutors, and the local government for suppressing, fabricating, and destroying evidence. Decedent died shortly thereafter, leaving Plaintiff as the executrix of his estate. In 2021, the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s amended complaint in its entirety based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) as to some defendants and 12(c) as to others.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiff brought a traditional negligence claim. Louisiana uses the typical reasonable-person standard to assess an individual’s liability for negligence. For the same reasons that Plaintiff did not adequately plead constitutional violations due to the defendants’ suppression, fabrication, and destruction of evidence, she also fails to plead sufficient factual matter to show that they violated the standard of care of a reasonable officer. Accordingly, the court found that the district court thus properly dismissed this claim. View "Armstrong v. Ashley" on Justia Law

In 2018, Mwande Serge Kpiele-Poda ("Employee") was injured at a wellsite while repairing a conveyor that activated and crushed his legs. While Employee's Workers' Compensation claim was still pending, he filed a petition asserting negligence and products liability against his employers, two wellsite operators, and the manufacturers and distributors of the conveyor. Ovintiv Mid-Continent, Inc. was named in the body of the petition but omitted from the caption. After the statute of limitations period expired, Employee amended his petition to add Ovintiv Mid-Continent, Inc. as a defendant in the petition's caption. A second amended petition added other parties. Ovintiv Mid-Continent, Inc. moved to dismiss arguing the claim was time-barred because the amended petition did not relate back to the first petition. Employee's employers also moved to dismiss arguing the Administrative Workers' Compensation Act and Oklahoma precedent precluded employees from simultaneously maintaining an action before the Workers' Compensation Commission and in the district court. The district court granted each dismissal motion and certified each order as appealable. The Oklahoma Supreme Court retained and consolidated Employee's separate appeals, holding: (1) the district court erred when it dismissed Employee's action against Ovintiv Mid-Continent, Inc. as time-barred; and (2) the district court properly dismissed Employee's intentional tort action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Kpiele-Poda v. Patterson-UTI Energy, et al." on Justia Law

Valero alleged that Dellard was a care custodian who provided in-home services to a dependent adult, Barton. Valero also provided such services to Barton. The two worked different shifts. Valero alleged that Dellard, a mandatory reporter under the elder-abuse laws, made a knowingly false report to law enforcement that she had seen Valero try to kill Barton by smothering him with a pillow. Dellard allegedly later coerced Barton to confirm the false report. Valero was arrested and charged with attempted murder, and spent 28 days in custody. The criminal charges against Valero were later dismissed.The court of appeal affirmed the dismissal of Valero’s complaint for malicious prosecution. Welfare and Institutions Code 15634(a) provides absolute immunity from civil and criminal liability to mandatory reporters under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. The legislative purpose was to serve and facilitate the policy goals of the Act—by increasing the reporting of elder abuse and minimizing the chilling disincentives to that reporting, including the fear of getting sued. The carve-out for knowingly false reports urged by Valero is not dictated by the statutory language and is counter to these legislative policy goals. The court rejected Valero’s effort to couch Dellard’s alleged post-reporting coercion of Barton as later conduct outside the broad contours of immunity for acts of reporting. View "Valero v. Spread Your Wings, LLC" on Justia Law

Ahern Rentals, Inc. (Ahern), alleges that two competitors— EquipmentShare.com, Inc. (EquipmentShare) and EZ Equipment Zone, LLC (EZ)— misappropriated its trade secrets to gain an unfair advantage in the construction equipment rental industry. The district court first dismissed EZ from the lawsuit, ruling that Ahern failed to state a plausible claim for relief against it. Later, the district court dismissed the case altogether, ruling that Ahern’s remaining claims against EquipmentShare were duplicative of claims against EquipmentShare in several other ongoing lawsuits brought by Ahern. Ahern appealed both rulings, arguing that the district court erred in dismissing its claims.   The Eighth Circuit reversed. The court reasoned that, according to Ahern, EquipmentShare developed programs by exploiting Ahern’s trade secrets. Ahern also alleged that the market information used by EZ to develop profitable utilization and rental rates is based on Ahern’s trade secrets illegally obtained by EquipmentShare. Taking all factual allegations as true, Ahern pled enough facts to make it entirely plausible that EZ is at least using systems developed by EquipmentShare through the exploitation of Ahern’s trade secrets. Further, the court found that Ahern has pled sufficient facts to state a claim against EZ for unjust enrichment. It is not disputed that Ahern’s trade secrets are a benefit with real economic value. And, as alleged in the complaint, EquipmentShare and EZ have used the benefit to their advantage. Finally, Ahern plausibly alleges malfeasance in the acquisition of these confidential trade secrets. Thus, the district court erred in dismissing Ahern’s claims against EZ for civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment. View "Ahern Rentals, Inc. v. EquipmentShare.com, Inc." on Justia Law

Niyokia Lee and James Cooper sustained damages in separate, independent automobile accidents caused by negligent city emergency responders. Lee’s accident happened in Harrison County, and Cooper’s happened in Rankin County. The Mississippi Tort Claims Act afforded immunity to the negligent police officer, the fireman, and the governmental entities employing them. Because Lee and Cooper could not recover from the responders or municipalities, both sought recovery under their car insurance policies’ uninsured motorist provisions. Lee and Cooper had the same UM coverage carrier—State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. And State Farm denied UM coverage to both, citing Mississippi Code Section 83-11-101(1) of Mississippi’s Uninsured Motorist Act. As State Farm saw it, because the officer and fireman enjoyed police and fire protection immunity under the MTCA, neither policyholder was legally entitled to recover from the immune responders or their city employers. State Farm thus denied UM coverage to Lee and Cooper despite the fact that, in 2009, the state legislature had revised Mississippi Code Section 83-11-103(c) of the UM Act by adding a new subsection expanding the definition of “uninsured motor vehicle” to include “[a] motor vehicle owned or operated by a person protected by immunity under the [MTCA.]” The two trial courts considering the UM coverage issue reached opposite results. The Harrison County Circuit Court granted summary judgment in State Farm’s favor and dismissed Lee’s claims against State Farm, finding because the officer was immune, Lee was not "legally entitled to recover" and consequently, was not eligible for UM coverage. The Rankin County Court granted summary judgment in Cooper’s favor, against State Farm, ruling UM coverage did apply because, otherwise, the 2009 amendment to the UM Act, which expanded the definition of “uninsured motor vehicle” to include vehicles operated by persons who are immune under the MTCA, would be "rendered virtually meaningless." The Mississippi Supreme Court consolidating the two cases found that the plain language of the two provisions made it apparent that Lee and Cooper were entitled to UM coverage. It therefore reversed and remanded the decision of the Harrison County Circuit Court, and affirmed and remanded the decision of the Rankin County Circuit Court. View "Lee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company" on Justia Law

While working as a standup forklift operator, Anderson hit a bump and fell onto the floor. The forklift continued moving and ran over her leg; the resulting injuries necessitated its amputation. Anderson sued the forklift’s manufacturer, Raymond, alleging that the forklift was negligently designed. The parties disputed the admissibility of the testimony of Dr. Meyer, one of Anderson’s experts. Meyer believed that Raymond could have made several changes to its design that would have prevented Anderson’s accident. Meyer’s primary suggestion was a door to enclose the operating compartment, which would prevent operators from falling into the forklift’s path. Like other standup forklift manufacturers, Raymond offers doors as an option but does not fit doors to its forklifts as standard, claiming that a door could impede the operator’s ability to make a quick exit if the forklift runs off a loading dock or begins to tip over. The district court concluded that Meyer’s opinion about a door was inadmissible because it did not satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or the “Daubert” test but admitted Meyer’s opinions on other potential design improvements.The Seventh Circuit reversed a judgment in Raymond's favor. The exclusion of Meyer’s opinion was substantially prejudicial to Anderson’s case. Meyer has a “full range of practical experience," academic, and technical training and his methodology rested on accepted scientific principles, Raymond’s critiques go to the weight his opinion should be given rather than its admissibility. View "Anderson v. Raymond Corp." on Justia Law