Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The US filed suit on behalf of the USDA to enjoin dissolution of the Benton County Sewer District No. 1. A Voter Representative Group seeks to intervene. The district court denied the motion. The court affirmed, concluding that the Group does not have Article III standing. The court rejected the Group's claims that it has an interest in upholding the vote to dissolve the District and immediately dissolving the District; an interest in opposing the repayment of the revenue bond the District issued to the USDA; an interest in opposing the State’s claims under the Missouri law; and an interest in proposing on-site sewage treatment alternatives. View "United States v. Geranis" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Arkansas State Board of Dental Examiners's executive director and members of the Board, alleging that the Board’s enforcement of the Arkansas Dental Practice Act, Ark. Code Ann. 17-82-305(g)(2), violates his rights under the Federal Constitution. The district court concluded that it should abstain from deciding the case pursuant to the doctrine established by Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co. The court concluded that, because there is no ambiguity and thus no unsettled question of state law, Pullman abstention is not appropriate here. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider the arguments in the first instance. View "Burris v. Cobb" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the MDHS Commissioner's decision to the state district court, claiming that Minn. Stat. 256L.07 violates federal laws, as well as Minnesota state law. While his state court action was pending, plaintiff filed his complaint in federal court alleging the same discrimination claims and also an equal protection violation. The state court dismissed his state cases and then the federal court dismissed his federal claims. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the dismissal of his federal claims. The court concluded that claim preclusion bars plaintiff from asserting his discrimination and equal protection claims in federal court and affirmed the judgment. View "Scheffler v. MN Dept. of Human Serv." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his civil action without prejudice. The district court construed plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal as also seeking relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court then determined that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the request for Rule 60(b) relief because plaintiff had simultaneously filed a notice of appeal (NOA). The court concluded that the motion should be construed as seeking Rule 60(b) relief, but held that the district court was mistaken in believing that it lacked authority to rule on the motion, which was filed within 28 days of the district court’s order. The court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because plaintiff's NOA will not become effective until after the District Court has ruled on his request for Rule 60(b) relief. View "Smith v. Missouri" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the executrix of her husband's estate, along with her husband's former business, Federal City, filed suit against Life Investors for conversion and tortious interference with a contract. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's dismissal of the complaint. The court concluded that this action is not barred by claim preclusion because the claims brought are not based upon the same cause of action as the prior suit. In this case, plaintiffs allege claims for conversion and tortious interference with contract against Life Investors because Life Investors removed over $400,000 from certain accounts to cover expenses above the alleged debt plaintiffs owed Life Investors. Life Investors removed these funds after the decision in the Maryland district court. The Maryland court never determined that plaintiffs lacked any interest in the assets in the accounts. Instead, it decided that plaintiffs were time-barred from bringing claims from a 2000 request for withdrawal of the assets and that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., claims were either time-barred or failed to allege a violation of ERISA law. Similarly, the claim is not barred by issue preclusion. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Corrado v. Life Investors Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Life Investors filed suit against defendants, alleging breach of a settlement agreement that required defendants to repay advances of monies defendants received from Life Investors. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to Life Investors. The court affirmed, concluding that defendants' laches defense failed because they cannot show unreasonable delay on the part of Life Investors in bringing this suit nor can defendants show that they were prejudiced; even if the alleged inconsistencies were material, defendants chose not to investigate further and thus the determination that they ratified the Settlement Agreement was correct; the district court correctly granted summary judgment on the question of ratification of the Settlement Agreement after certifying that question to the Iowa Supreme Court and receiving its answer; and defendants' attempt to argue an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., violation as a defense in this action is barred as a matter of issue preclusion. View "Life Investors Ins. Co. v. Federal City Region" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sell technology that permits computers to identify license-plate numbers in digital photographs taken by cameras mounted on vehicles. The cameras automatically photograph everything the vehicles encounter, with GPS coordinates; software provides notice if a photographed vehicle is subject to repossession. The information is sold to clients, including automobile finance and insurance companies and law enforcement. Arkansas’s Automatic License Plate Reader System Act prohibits use of automatic license plate reader systems and permits any person claiming harm from a violation to seek damages from the violator. Vigilant and its affiliates sued, arguing that “use of [automatic license plate reader] systems to collect and create information” and dissemination of the information constitutes speech and that the Act impermissibly restricts this speech based on content—license-plate data—and on the identity of the speaker, because it exempts some entities, such as law enforcement agencies. The district court dismissed, ruling that state officials were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed on the ground that the plaintiffs lack standing, so there is no Article III case or controversy. State officials do not have authority to enforce the Act, so they do not cause injury; the Act provides for enforcement only through private actions for damages. View "Digital Recognition Network, Inc. v. Hutchinson" on Justia Law