Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

This case concerned gypsum wallboard (Chinese drywall) manufactured by Chinese companies and sold to United States companies. Homeowners experienced problems with the drywall and affected parties sued entities involved in the manufacturing, importing, and installing of the drywall. This appeal encompasses three cases in the Chinese Drywall multidistrict litigation - Mitchell, Gross, and Wiltz. Picking up where the court left off in Germano v. Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd., the court held that personal jurisdiction lies over Taishan Gypsum Company, Limited, and Tai'an Taishan Plasterboard Company, Limited, in their respective cases. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to vacate the preliminary default entered in Mitchell. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "In Re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation" on Justia Law

This suit arose when Kenyon filed a revocatory and oblique action against defendants to collect on the judgment against Brennan's Inc. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear this appeal where the voluntary dismissal of Ted Brennan's appeal voided his notice of appeal. He failed to file a new notice of appeal within the time limits required by Rule 4(a) or seek relief in the district court as provided by Rule 4(a). The reinstatement of his appeal by a single judge of this court was not decisive of this specific jurisdictional issue. View "Colbert, et al. v. Brennan, et al." on Justia Law

The Louisiana legislature established the Scholarship Program in 2012 to provide funding to low-income parents with children in failing schools so that they may have the option of sending them to better schools, including private schools, of their own choosing. Parents seek to intervene in this litigation between Louisiana and the federal government over the state's voucher program. The court concluded that the parents met the requirements for intervention as of right and reversed the district court's denial of their motion to intervene. View "Brumfield, et al. v. Dodd, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed state law claims against Sentrillion, a general contractor, for injuries he sustained during a construction project for the U.S. Custom and Border Patrol. Sentrillion filed third-party indemnity and contribution claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., against the United States. The United States then moved the case to federal court and then moved to dismiss under the derivative jurisdiction doctrine. The district court dismissed all claims against the United States and remanded remaining claims to state court. Sentrillion appealed. The court affirmed the district court's holding that it was bound by extant Supreme Court precedent to dismiss Sentrillion's claims against the United States under the derivative jurisdiction doctrine. Having determined as a preliminary matter that the derivative jurisdiction doctrine applied to removals under 28 U.S.C. 1442, the court affirmed the district court's order remanding the remaining state law claims to state court on the basis that Sentrillion waived appeal of the 28 U.S.C. 1367(c) determination. View "Lopez v. Sentrillon Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was an original member of the class of plaintiffs in Betty Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. After the Supreme Court decertified the Dukes class, plaintiff filed this putative class action in the Texas district court. That court dismissed plaintiff's individual claims because they had ceased to be tolled and were therefore time-barred. The court reversed and remanded, holding that, under Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah and its progeny, the relevant statute of limitations remained tolled when plaintiff filed her complaint in this case. View "Odle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

OAK made a request for attorney's fees in an underlying bankruptcy case for legal services it provided when representing debtors in Chapter 11 proceedings. OAK sought review of the district court's order vacating in part and remanding in part the bankruptcy court's decision to award only a portion of OAK's overall attorney's fees request. The court dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction under the court's well-established principle that a district court order was not final within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 158(d) when that order reverses an order of the bankruptcy court and remands the case for significant further proceedings on the very issue the parties sought to address on appeal. View "Okin Adams & Kilmer, L.L.P. v. Hill" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Bailey in Texas state court, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation claims under state law. Plaintiff then filed an amended petition in state court, adding claims for racial discrimination and retaliation under federal laws. Plaintiff then removed the case to federal court based on the newly asserted federal-law claims. The district court granted Bailey's motion to dismiss. The court held that the Texas statute applied here to determine whether plaintiff's amended petition filed in state court related back to the date of his original petition. In this case, the amended petition did not relate back under the Texas statute because the claims set forth in plaintiff's original petition were barred when filed. Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that the claims asserted therein were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Taylor v. Bailey Tool & Manufacturing Co." on Justia Law