Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Larry and Elaine, husband and wife, filed suit in Iowa state court in 2008 against multiple parties, including defendant, whom they claimed was negligent in his pre-bankruptcy and bankruptcy-planning advice. The jury found in favor of defendant and warded him a $12,200 judgment. In 2013, the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the award of unpaid legal fees. Larry and Elaine then filed this action in 2014, alleging that defendant was negligent in advising them regarding their bankruptcy, and that their sons acted in concert with Putnam to close the bankruptcy through the Settlement Agreement with the bankruptcy trustee. The district court determined that the jury verdict in the prior case disposed of all issues in the instant case but one: the alleged failure of Putnam to protect Larry and Elaine’s interests when the bankruptcy was closed. The court held that Larry and Elaine's claim is barred by res judicata. Larry and Elaine’s claim in the instant action relates to the same cause of action that was adjudicated to a final judgment on the merits in the first malpractice case, and Larry and Elaine have failed to show that their claim could not have been fully and fairly adjudicated in the first action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Schaefer v. Putnam" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against various municipalities and their employees under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2721-25, after municipal and state personnel had accessed plaintiff’s personal information approximately sixty times between 2003 and 2012. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims without prejudice but allowed her to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff instead requested that the district court enter final judgment dismissing her case with prejudice. Then plaintiff appealed the district court’s decision without receiving the judgment she requested. The court concluded that, because plaintiff did not obtain a final judgment following the district court’s dismissal of her complaint with leave to amend, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "Sapp v. City of Brooklyn Park" on Justia Law

A.H. and Renna Yi, both minors, were passengers on a school bus that collided with a pickup truck, causing them serious injuries. A.H. and Yi's parents, on behalf of the minors, filed suit in Missouri state court alleging, among other things, that the brakes were defective. Midwest Bus, the retail seller of the bus, originally was a party to each action, but was omitted from subsequent amended complaints. The jury found in favor of all remaining defendants and the state trial court entered judgment. The minors also each filed suit against Midwest Bus in federal court in diversity actions under Missouri law. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal on the alternative ground that their claims are barred by collateral estoppel, as oppose to res judicata, because the jury unambiguously decided that their injuries were not caused by improper installation of automatic slack adjusters (ASAs) on the bus, and that the ASAs were not the cause or a contributing cause of the crash. View "A. H. v. Midwest Bus Sales, Inc." on Justia Law

Federated Mutual, the insurer, filed an interpleader suit to determine the rights of Moody Station and the Big Store to insurance proceeds. The district court found Moody Station was not entitled to the full amount and awarded attorney fees to Federated. The court concluded that Moody Station is correct that there is no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1335’s interpleader because the two adverse claimants are both citizens of Missouri. The court determined that diversity jurisdiction exists in this case because there is diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy is met. Although the district court did not explicitly find a partial loss, the district court implicitly rejected that a total loss occurred. In this case, the district court did not clearly err in determining the actual cash value of the destroyed property. The court concluded, however, that the district court clearly abused its discretion in ordering Moody Station to pay attorney fees to Federated where Federated has consistently opposed Moody Station’s attempts to collect on its policy and is not a disinterested stakeholder deserving attorney fees. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Federated Mutual Ins. Co. v. Moody Station and Grocery" on Justia Law

Robinson Helicopter petitioned for a writ of prohibition that would prevent the district court from enforcing an order directing Robinson Helicopter to file with the district court exhibits from depositions taken in Long v. Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. Long is a civil case that was filed in 2009 and closed in April 2012 after a settlement and judgment. Respondents, intervenors in the district court, seek the deposition exhibits for use in a civil action against Robinson that is pending in California state court and scheduled for trial on April 11, 2016. The court concluded that a writ should issue here, because the district court lacks power to impose any new discovery-related requirements on the parties to the Long case after that lawsuit was settled and closed in 2012. The exhibits at issue were never filed in the district court or otherwise made part of the record in Long. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court lacks authority at this juncture to require production of these documents for use by third parties. Insofar as Robinson Helicopter seeks additional prospective relief concerning deposition transcripts from Long that were filed pursuant to an order of the district court in 2014, the court denied the petition. Even assuming Robinson Helicopter has not waived any objection to the district court’s exercise of authority over the transcripts, there is no current controversy over access to them. Finally, the court denied Robinson Helicopter’s request for an award of fees and expenses. View "In re: Robinson Helicopter Co." on Justia Law

Andover appealed the district court's denial of its 28 U.S.C. 1782 petition for discovery to be used in a patent-infringement suit in Germany. The district court considered Andover’s petition in light of the considerations identified by the Supreme Court and concluded that three considerations weighed against an order of production: (1) 3M is a party to the parallel German infringement suit and the German court had said it would grant Andover’s discovery request if necessary to resolve the case; (2) the “highly sensitive nature of the requested discovery, and the lack of certainty that its confidentiality can be maintained," and (3) Andover’s apparent attempt to avoid or preempt an unfavorable decision on discovery by the German court. In this case, the German court is in a position to order the requested discovery if the information is needed, and the German court is best positioned to assess whether any disclosure can be accomplished without jeopardizing the sensitive trade secrets involved. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Andover's petition. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Andover Healthcare, Inc. v. 3M Company" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Matt Holten and Jeff Ellis under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendants, law enforcement officers, used excessive force while taking plaintiff into custody. Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of appeal, and he eventually filed a brief challenging only the district court’s dismissal of the claim against Holten. The notice of appeal, however, specified that plaintiff was appealing only a different order in the case. Where an appellant specifies one order of the district court in his notice of appeal, but fails to identify another, the notice is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction to review the unmentioned order. Where a district court dismisses one claim at an early stage of the case, and later enters an order and judgment dismissing a second claim, a notice of appeal that cites only the later order and judgment does not confer appellate jurisdiction to review the earlier order. In this case, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the order not mentioned in plaintiff's notice of appeal. Because plaintiff failed to raise any arguments in regard to the order he did mention, the court determined that plaintiff has abandoned any challenge to that order. View "Rosillo v. Holten" on Justia Law

ERISA Plaintiffs, administrators of Employee Benefit Plans governed by the Employees Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., who entered into securities lending agreements with Wells Fargo, seek to reverse the district court's judgment that it was bound by collateral estoppel and thus required to find against ERISA Plaintiffs and in favor of Wells Fargo on their ERISA claims. Other plaintiffs brought state common law claims. ERISA Plaintiffs and common-law plaintiffs were represented by the same law firm. Following the trial, the parties simultaneously submitted Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with respect to the ERISA claims. In its submission, Wells Fargo asserted that collateral estoppel should apply and that based on the jury verdict, the court was bound to find that there was no breach of fiduciary duty. The district court determined that it was constrained by collateral estoppel to render judgment on ERISA Plaintiffs’ claims consistent with the jury’s determination and issued judgment, dismissing the ERISA Plaintiffs’ ERISA claims with prejudice. ERISA Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that the district court erred in failing to find that Wells Fargo waived any right to assert that the district court was bound by the jury’s findings. The court vacated because the district court failed to consider whether the parties waived the application of collateral estoppel. The court remanded for the district court determine whether waiver occurred. View "Blue Cross Blue Shield of MN v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit seeking damages from American Family for their individual insurance claims, and the district court later granted American Family's motion to dismiss. The district court denied plaintiffs' motion to amend. Plaintiffs' motion to amend sought to change their theory of the case because the class action petition had challenged the contents of all American Family insurance policies in a declaratory judgment pleading while the proposed second amended petition claimed that American Family breached the contents of the insurance contract. Furthermore, the class action petition sought a class wide injunction, not individual damages, while the proposed second amended petition sought individual damages instead of a class wide injunction. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion because plaintiffs sought to change their theory of liability after their class action petition had been dismissed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Adams v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former special agent with the FBI, filed suit against the DOJ under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A), alleging that the Deputy Attorney General’s decision affirming the OARM's finding that she had not been constructively discharged and denying her back pay was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. Plaintiff had previously filed a suit in district court alleging that OPR had not conducted its investigation as required by the applicable regulations and seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under the APA. The court concluded that both of plaintiff's suits relied on the same basis of subject matter jurisdiction and so the issues are the same for collateral estoppel purposes. Factual differences between the two underlying causes of action are immaterial, because those differences do not affect the common question, namely, whether Congress intended the CSRA to proscribe unique and exclusive remedial procedures for FBI employees alleging retaliation. Even if the court were to construe application of different sections of the APA as raising potentially different issues, collateral estoppel would still bar the action because both actions involve application of the same legal standard. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Turner v. DOJ" on Justia Law