Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Two nonresident minors filed suit against Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, the manufacturer of an allegedly defective tire that failed, causing a rollover that killed the children’s parents. The minors sued by a next friend - their uncle - who was a Texas resident. The residents resided in Mexico with their grandparents, who became the children’s legal guardians. Bridgestone filed a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, asserting that the case belonged in Mexico, not Texas. The trial court denied the motion. Bridgestone petitioned for writ of mandamus in the court of appeals. The court denied relief, concluding that because the next-friend was a Texas resident the case may not be dismissed on forum-non-conveniens grounds. Bridgestone subsequently sought mandamus relief in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court conditionally granted Bridgestone’s petition for writ of mandamus and ordered the trial court to dismiss the action, holding (1) Texas law allows minors to sue by next friend when they have a legal guardian who is not authorized to sue in Texas in that capacity; (2) a next friend is not a plaintiff for purposes of the forum-non-conveniens statute’s Texas-resident exception; and (3) therefore, this case must be dismissed as a matter of law. View "In re Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2008, the decedent was killed in a helicopter crash. The decedent’s widow and children (collectively, Appellants) filed a products liability action against the helicopter’s manufacturer and repair company. The jury returned a unanimous verdict finding that the defendants were not negligent. Approximately eighteen months after the jury returned its verdict, Appellants were allegedly told that the verdict was influenced by the jurors’ improper knowledge of a confidential settlement offer. Appellants filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) seeking an evidentiary hearing to explore the jury taint. The district court denied the motion on the grounds that the filing of the motion was untimely and that the materials filed in support of the motion were insufficient. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, holding that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion for 60(b) relief without holding such a hearing. View "Bouret-Echevarria v. Caribbean Aviation Maint. Corp." on Justia Law

Nineteen unrelated mothers brought in the Circuit Court of Wayne County claims against Pfizer, Inc. and related entities (collectively, Respondents) on behalf of their respective minor children, alleging that their ingestion of Zoloft during their pregnancies caused their children to suffer birth defects. Petitioners hailed from fifteen different states. Respondents moved to refer the litigation to the Mass Litigation Panel. After the motion was denied, a virtually identical complaint was filed in the Wayne County Circuit Court by six unrelated plaintiff families against Respondents. The circuit court consolidated the two civil actions. The twenty-five plaintiff families then moved to refer the litigation to the Panel. The chief justice transferred the two civil actions to the Panel. Respondents filed a motion seeking to dismiss twenty-two non-resident plaintiff families on the basis of forum non conveniens. The Panel granted, in part, the motion to dismiss and dismissed twenty of the twenty-two plaintiff families. Petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of the Panel’s dismissal order. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that there was no basis to prevent the Panel from enforcing its dismissal order. View "State ex rel. J.C. v. Hon. James P. Mazzone" on Justia Law

Petitioner Hyundai Motor Company petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to stay a scheduled judgment debtor examination of its president and chief executive officer over a dispute regarding an attempt by real-party-in-interest to collect supposed postjudgment interest of $462.50 on an attorney fee award of $42,203. Hyundai promptly paid the entire fee award, but refused to pay any additional sums for interest. Rosen accepted the tendered amount but deducted $462.50 as an interest payment, allegedly leaving part of the principal balance unpaid. From this initial $462.50, Rosen claimed that Hyundai owed more than $13,000 for additional interest and attorney fees in less than a six-month period, "one of the best growth investments we have seen." The Court of Appeal granted Hyundai's request: "[t]here is a short answer to Rosen’s claim for postjudgment interest: the attorney fee order was filed months before the entry of the final judgment in this matter. By law, postjudgment interest accrues in lemon-law cases at the time the final judgment is entered. When respondent court filed and entered its final judgment on November 21, 2014, Rosen’s attorney fee award had long been paid. As a result, Rosen is not entitled to postjudgment interest of $462.50, or in any amount." View "Hyundai Motor America v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Jim Book, the owner of an auto repair shop in Iowa, bought from an Iowa retailer four Treadstone tires manufactured in China by Doublestar Dongfeng Tyre Company, Ltd. Jim’s son, Dylan Book, was airing up one of the tires when it exploded, causing severe and permanent injuries. Dylan, through his mother, filed a products-liability action in Iowa seeking recovery from Doublestar and Voma Tire Corporation, a national tire distributor that sold several of Doublestar’s tires. Doublestar moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Federal Constitution permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a high-volume, foreign manufacturer, such as Doublestar, whose allegedly dangerous product purchased in Iowa injured a resident here. View "Book v. Voma Tire Corp." on Justia Law

In 1988 Sutherland received breast implants in North Carolina. She filed suit in North Carolina five years later, after learning that the silicone in her implants could be causing a variety of serious medical problems. The Silicone’s manufacturer, Dow Corning, filed for bankruptcy in Michigan, and Sutherland’s suit was transferred there. In 2012, 24 years after Sutherland received the implants, the district court concluded that Sutherland’s claim was barred by Michigan’s statute of limitations and granted summary judgment to the defendant. The Sixth Circuit reversed, reasoning that the district court should have applied North Carolina’s law instead of Michigan’s, and should have concluded that there was a genuine factual issue as to whether Sutherland’s claim was timely-filed under North Carolina law. View "Sutherland v. DCC Litig. Facility, Inc." on Justia Law

Velasquez worked at a company that made food flavorings, moving diacetyl, in closed and open containers. He breathed ambient diacetyl particles while mixing liquid and dry flavorings. Material safety data sheets attached to the containers warned that diacetyl was “harmful by inhalation,” but, consistent with industry practices at the time, did not warn of specific risks. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health did not issue exposure limits until years later. During a 2005 incident, Velasquez inhaled fumes from a concentration that included acetaldehyde, but not diacetyl. He experienced trouble breathing and sought medical attention. Velasquez returned to the hospital twice in the next two months. In 2005, Velasquez’s supervisor took him to a clinic where a “company doctor” told him he could not continue working for the company in his condition. In 2006 Velasquez was diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans, a rare lung disease which is usually progressive and fatal. He filed suit. After finding the issue relevant to Velasquez’s ability to receive a lung transplant, the judge advised prospective jurors that Velasquez is an undocumented immigrant. The court entered judgment on the jury’s special verdict, including findings that the supplier’s acts were not a substantial factor in causing Velasquez’s harm. The court of appeal reversed, based on the error in disclosing Velasquez’s status to jurors. View "Velasquez v. Centrome, Inc." on Justia Law

After plaintiff's daughter developed a condition known as dental fluorisis, plaintiff filed suit against the manufacturers of bottled water, infant formula, and baby food that her daughter consumed. At issue was whether federal law, which provides uniform labeling standards for the products at issue, preempts plaintiff's state-law claims. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's action, holding that federal law preempts plaintiff's bottled water claims and that her complaint as to the infant formula and baby food products fails to satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). View "Nemphos v. Nestle Waters North America" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Heinkel and Pepperl in Iowa state court, seeking damages based on a products-liability theory. On appeal, Heinkel and Pepperl challenged the district court's grant of plaintiffs' motion to dismiss without prejudice and the district court's failure to condition the dismissal on the payment of fees and costs. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting plaintiffs' motion to dismiss without prejudice where the grant of voluntary dismissal did not result in a waste of judicial time and effort because the case had not progressed very far. Further, in these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting the voluntary dismissal without awarding fees and costs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Mullen v. Pepperl & Fuchs, Inc." on Justia Law

A.S., who suffers from a congenital birth defect, and his mother, Miller, who ingested Paxil while pregnant, sued GSK in the Philadelphia County Court, alleging that all parties were citizens of Pennsylvania. GSK removed the case based upon diversity. On plaintiffs’ motion, the case was consolidated with other Paxil cases before a district court judge who had previously held that GSK was a citizen of Pennsylvania and who remanded A.S.’s case and the other consolidated cases to state court. The case returned to state court on January 4, 2012. On June 7, 2013, the Third Circuit issued its opinion in Johnson, which held that GSK was a citizen of Delaware. Less than 30 days after the Johnson decision, GSK filed a second notice of removal in A.S.’s case and in eight other cases with the same procedural posture. The district court denied the motion and certified its order for interlocutory review. The Third Circuit directed remand to state court, holding that the second removal request was untimely under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b) because there had been a final order.View "A.S. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp" on Justia Law