Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that Beresford breached the terms of an option contract by selling their former farm to the Gords. Plaintiffs also claim that the Gords tortiously interfered with their contract with Beresford. The district court granted summary judgment for Beresford and the Gords based on the preclusive effect of a prior state-court judgment. The court concluded that the doctrine of claim preclusion bars plaintiffs' claims against Beresford where the state court's grant of summary judgment in Finstad I was on the merits, this federal case involves the same parties as Finstad I, and plaintiffs' claim of judicial estoppel was rejected. Plaintiffs brought two claims in Finstad I and the state district court entered separate conclusions of law on these two claims. These two conclusions were not alternative holdings; each resolved a separate claim in the complaint. Therefore, in affirming the grant of summary judgment for the Gords on all claims, the state supreme court affirmed both conclusions. Because the Finstad I court necessarily decided that plaintiffs lacked a contractual interest in the farmland, plaintiffs are barred from relitigating that issue here. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Finstad v. Beresford Bancorporation, Inc." on Justia Law

A class of plaintiffs filed suit against the Rams in the Twenty-Second Circuit Court in the city of St. Louis, alleging state-law violations that arose out of the Rams' relocation of their professional football team to Los Angeles, California. The Rams removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). Once before the federal district court, plaintiffs moved to remand to the state court based predominantly on a lack of minimal diversity necessary to support CAFA jurisdiction. On appeal, the Rams challenged the district court's decision to remand the case to the Missouri state court. The court concluded that the Rams properly removed the case to federal court by filing a notice of removal; the district court's refusal to consider postremoval evidence effectively denied the Rams the opportunity for jurisdictional discovery to establish their claim of federal jurisdiction; and the district court's refusal to consider postremoval evidence prejudiced the Rams by limiting their ability to prove their statutory right to a federal forum. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order remanding the case to the Missouri state court and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Pudlowski v. The St. Louis Rams LLC" on Justia Law

Relator filed a qui tam action alleging that Bi-State and Eager Road made false claims to receive federal public-transit funds through the Department of Transportation and the Federal Transit Administration. The district court denied Bi-State’s motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that the issue of Bi-State's immunity is not properly before the court. At no point during the proceedings before the district court did Bi-State claim that it was entitled to sovereign immunity. Bi-State’s motion for summary judgment argued only that it is not a “person” under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, and the district court’s denial of summary judgement addressed only that question. View "United States ex rel Fields v. Bi-State Dev. Agency" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of D.S., a minor student with intellectual disabilities, filed suit against the school district and others, in state court, seeking damages for premises liability and negligent supervision because D.S. was raped by another student in an unsupervised area of Southwest during the school day, and because D.S. was repeatedly bullied and sexually harassed by her classmates and peers. Defendants removed to federal court, claiming that plaintiff's causes of action arose under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq., and then moved to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(1) and (6). The district court denied plaintiff's motion to remand and dismissed the suit for failure to exhaust IDEA administrative remedies. The court concluded that plaintiff’s theories of liability arise out of Missouri statutory and common law, and the disposition of claims for premises liability and negligent supervision is not dependent on resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Even if the relief plaintiff requested were available under both state law and the IDEA, the well-pled complaint rule protects plaintiff's right to choose a state law cause of action. The court agreed with the Ninth Circuit that non-IDEA claims that do not seek relief available under the IDEA are not subject to the exhaustion requirement, even if they allege injuries that could conceivably have been redressed by the IDEA. Finally, the court denied plaintiff's request for attorney fees because defendants had a reasonable basis for their removal request. The court reversed and remanded to state court. View "Moore v. Kansas City Public Sch." on Justia Law

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