Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Broc Waltermeyer, an incarcerated federal inmate, alleged that he received inadequate medical treatment for his chronic knee pain while at the Federal Correctional Institute in Berlin, New Hampshire. He claimed that despite receiving various non-surgical treatments, including cortisone injections, pain medication, special shoes, knee braces, access to a low bunk, and a cane, he continued to experience pain. Waltermeyer argued that he should have been provided with knee replacement surgery, which was recommended to be deferred by an outside specialist until he was older.The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire dismissed Waltermeyer's complaint, holding that his claims failed because he had an alternative administrative remedy. The district court also denied his motion for a preliminary injunction, as he had been transferred to a different facility, making the defendants no longer responsible for his care. Waltermeyer then amended his complaint to seek only money damages, leading to the current appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that Waltermeyer's claims were meaningfully different from those in Carlson v. Green, where the Supreme Court recognized a Bivens-type Eighth Amendment claim against federal prison officials for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The court found that Waltermeyer received substantial treatment, albeit not the treatment he preferred, and that the medical procedures administered were in accordance with doctors' recommendations. The court concluded that the differences in the nature of the medical care provided and the absence of gross inadequacy or deliberate indifference made Waltermeyer's case distinct from Carlson, thus precluding the extension of a Bivens remedy. View "Waltermeyer v. Hazlewood" on Justia Law

The case involves Leika Joanna García-Gesualdo, who filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Honeywell Aerospace of Puerto Rico, Inc., and Honeywell International, Inc. García-Gesualdo alleged that Honeywell discriminated against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC investigated her claims but decided not to proceed further, issuing a right-to-sue letter on March 29, 2022. García-Gesualdo filed her lawsuit on July 7, 2022, 100 days after the EEOC's decision.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed García-Gesualdo's claims as time-barred, agreeing with Honeywell that the complaint was filed more than ninety days after the EEOC issued the right-to-sue letter. The court noted that García-Gesualdo's attorney received emails from the EEOC on March 29 and April 6, indicating that a new document was available on the EEOC's portal. The district court concluded that the ninety-day period began on either March 29 or April 6, making the July 7 filing untimely.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that neither the March 29 email nor the April 6 email provided sufficient notice of García-Gesualdo's right to sue. The court emphasized that the emails did not unambiguously indicate that the EEOC had terminated its processes or that the ninety-day period to file a lawsuit had begun. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that the facts establishing untimeliness were not clear on the face of the pleadings, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Garcia-Gesualdo v. Honeywell Aerospace of Puerto Rico, Inc." on Justia Law

A Salvadoran national filed two petitions for review of decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The first petition challenges the BIA's January 2024 decision upholding the denial by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of his applications for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The second petition challenges the BIA's March 2024 denial of his motion to reopen his administrative proceedings to seek a continuance or administrative closure while his U visa petition is pending.The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against the petitioner in May 2022 for entering the United States without inspection. An immigration court found him removable and designated El Salvador as the country of removal. The petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal under the INA, and protection under the CAT. The IJ denied his applications, finding that his proposed particular social group (PSG) was not cognizable and that he failed to establish a sufficient likelihood of harm if removed to El Salvador. The BIA vacated and remanded for further findings, but the IJ again denied relief. The BIA dismissed the appeal, affirming the IJ's findings.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the BIA may have endorsed the IJ's use of an improper "ocular visibility" standard in evaluating the social distinction of the petitioner's proposed PSG. The court also noted ambiguity in the BIA's analysis regarding the scope of the petitioner's PSG. Consequently, the court granted the first petition, remanded for further proceedings, and dismissed the second petition as moot. The petitioner may renew his applications for withholding of removal and CAT protection on remand. View "Alvarez Mendoza v. Bondi" on Justia Law

In 2019, New Hampshire filed two lawsuits in state court against 3M Company and other chemical companies, alleging that they produced defective PFAS products, negligently marketed them, and concealed their toxicity, leading to widespread contamination of the state's natural resources. One lawsuit sought damages for PFAS from aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), while the other sought damages for non-AFFF PFAS contamination. The latter, referred to as the "Non-AFFF Suit," is the subject of this appeal.The Non-AFFF Suit proceeded in state court, and over the next three years, the court dismissed some of New Hampshire's claims. In August 2021, New Hampshire filed a second amended complaint. In December 2021, New Hampshire disclosed over 200 sites allegedly contaminated with non-AFFF PFAS. In April 2022, 3M removed the case to federal court, arguing that the contamination involved MilSpec AFFF PFAS, which it produced for the U.S. military, thus invoking the federal officer removal statute. New Hampshire moved to remand the case, and the district court agreed, citing that 3M's removal was untimely and did not meet the federal officer removal statute requirements.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that it had appellate jurisdiction. The court assumed, without deciding, that the alleged commingling of MilSpec AFFF PFAS and non-AFFF PFAS satisfied the nexus requirement for federal officer removal. However, it found that 3M's removal was untimely. The court determined that New Hampshire's filings in 2019 and 2020 provided sufficient information for 3M to ascertain removability, starting the 30-day removal clock well before 3M filed for removal in April 2022. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's decision to remand the case to state court. View "New Hampshire v. 3M Company" on Justia Law

Kilvert, a Rhode Island company, acquired a commercial property and claimed that SBC Tower, a Delaware company, breached their lease agreement by failing to pay fifty percent of the payments received from subleases. Kilvert filed a Commercial Property Eviction Complaint in Rhode Island district court, seeking eviction and damages. SBC Tower removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island based on diversity jurisdiction. Kilvert moved to remand, arguing that Rhode Island law grants exclusive jurisdiction over landlord-tenant disputes to state district courts.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island agreed with Kilvert and granted the motion to remand, holding that Rhode Island law mandates that the state district court is the proper court for this action, making removal improper. SBC Tower appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court determined that the Rhode Island statute in question, R.I. Gen. Laws § 8-8-3(a)(2), allocates jurisdiction among state courts and does not divest federal courts of jurisdiction in cases where diversity jurisdiction is present. The court held that the statute does not preclude removal to federal court and that the federal court has the authority to hear the case. Consequently, the First Circuit reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "289 Kilvert, LLC v. SBC Tower Holdings LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, a seaman, Magnus Aadland, filed a lawsuit in 2017 against Boat Santa Rita II, Inc. (BSR II) and related parties, alleging that he fell ill while working offshore in 2014 and was owed maintenance and cure, which were not provided. Aadland sought compensatory damages for unpaid maintenance and cure, emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorney's fees.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts initially ruled in favor of BSR II, finding that Aadland had reached maximum medical recovery (MMR) by the time of the trial in September 2020 and that BSR II had satisfied its duty of cure. The court also denied Aadland's claims for emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorney's fees.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the District Court's judgment, finding that the District Court had erred in its application of the law, particularly regarding the duty of cure and the applicability of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Gauthier v. Crosby Marine Service, Inc. The First Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings.On remand, the District Court ruled that Aadland had not reached MMR as of September 2020 and that BSR II owed cure in the amount of $605,338.07, which was the amount paid by Aadland's private insurer, Tufts. The court credited BSR II's $400,000 payment to Tufts and $238,374 in advances to Aadland against this amount, resulting in a credit for BSR II. The court again denied Aadland's claims for emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorney's fees.On further appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment regarding emotional distress damages but vacated the judgment regarding punitive damages and attorney's fees, finding that BSR II's breach of its duty of cure was willful. The case was remanded for the District Court to determine whether punitive damages and attorney's fees should be awarded. The First Circuit also affirmed the District Court's finding that Aadland had not reached MMR as of September 2020 and the setoff amount for BSR II's payment to Tufts. View "Aadland v. Boat Santa Rita II, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1, LLC; and Series PMPI filed a lawsuit in September 2018 against Fresenius Medical Care Holdings and related entities, alleging negligence, product liability, and design defect claims related to the GranuFlo product used in hemodialysis treatments. The claims arose from a 2012 public memorandum by Fresenius that GranuFlo could lead to cardiopulmonary arrest. The plaintiffs argued that the statute of limitations was tolled by a putative class action filed in 2013 (the Berzas action) in the Eastern District of Louisiana, which was later transferred to the District of Massachusetts as part of multidistrict litigation (MDL).The District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the plaintiffs' claims as time-barred, concluding that the Berzas action ceased to be a class action by June 2014 when the named plaintiffs filed Short Form Complaints or stipulations of dismissal, which did not include class allegations. The court also noted that the Berzas plaintiffs did not pursue class certification actively, and the case was administratively closed in April 2019.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The First Circuit held that the Berzas action lost its class action status by June 2014, and any tolling under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah ended at that time. The court reasoned that allowing indefinite tolling based on an inactive class certification request would contravene the principles of efficiency and economy in litigation. Therefore, the plaintiffs' 2018 complaint was untimely, and the district court's dismissal was upheld. View "MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Vicor Corporation supplied power converter modules to Foxconn for years. Vicor alleged that Foxconn switched to manufacturing and importing knock-off modules that infringed Vicor's patents. In July 2023, Vicor filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging patent infringement by Foxconn. Simultaneously, Vicor sued Foxconn for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which stayed the case pending the ITC's resolution. Foxconn then initiated arbitration in China, claiming Vicor had agreed to arbitrate disputes based on terms in purchase orders. Vicor filed a new lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, seeking to enjoin the arbitration and declare it was not bound by the arbitration or license terms.The district court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) and later a preliminary injunction against the arbitration, despite Foxconn's request for a stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1659. The court acknowledged that Section 1659 applied but concluded it could still grant preliminary relief based on the All Writs Act and its inherent authority to preserve its jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that Section 1659 required the district court to stay proceedings because Vicor's claims involved issues also present in the ITC proceeding. The appellate court held that the district court erred in granting the preliminary injunction despite Foxconn's request for a stay. Consequently, the First Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Vicor Corp. v. FII USA Inc." on Justia Law

An environmental group, Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), sued Academy Express, LLC (Academy), a transportation company, alleging that Academy violated the Clean Air Act (CAA) by idling its buses beyond state limits in Massachusetts and Connecticut. CLF claimed that its members were harmed by breathing polluted air from Academy's buses. Academy moved for summary judgment, arguing that CLF lacked associational standing. The district court agreed and granted Academy's motion, holding that CLF could not demonstrate that its members suffered a concrete injury traceable to Academy's conduct.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts found that only two of CLF's members, Wagner and Morelli, had alleged injuries-in-fact, but their injuries were not traceable to Academy's idling due to the presence of other potential pollution sources in the urban environment. The court did not address the standing of additional members disclosed by CLF after the close of fact discovery or the expert testimony submitted by CLF.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and disagreed with the district court's narrow interpretation of injury-in-fact. The appellate court held that breathing polluted air and reasonable fear of health effects from pollution are cognizable injuries. It also found that recreational harms do not require a change in behavior to be considered injuries-in-fact. The court emphasized that traceability does not require a conclusive link but can be established through geographic proximity and expert testimony.The First Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The district court was instructed to determine the scope of the record, make necessary factual findings, and apply the correct legal standards for injury-in-fact and traceability. The appellate court did not address redressability, leaving it for the district court to consider if necessary. View "Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Academy Express, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Jodi Bourgeois and Pamela Smith filed separate lawsuits against The TJX Companies, Inc., Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and The Gap, Inc., alleging violations of the New Hampshire Driver Privacy Act (NH DPA). The plaintiffs claimed that the retailers required them to present their driver's licenses for non-receipted returns and subsequently disclosed their driver's license information to a third party, The Retail Equation (TRE), without their consent. The plaintiffs argued that this disclosure violated sections IX(a) and IX(b) of the NH DPA.The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire dismissed the complaints in all three cases. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the NH DPA because a driver's license in the possession of the person to whom it pertains is not considered a "motor vehicle record" under the statute. The court also found that the information disclosed to TRE was not from a "department record" as defined by the NH DPA.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the consolidated appeals. The court affirmed the district court's dismissals, agreeing that the plaintiffs' driver's licenses, in their own possession, are not "motor vehicle records" under the NH DPA. The court also held that the term "department record" refers to authentic copies of documents deposited and kept with the New Hampshire Department of Safety, and the information disclosed to TRE did not fall within this definition. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims under sections IX(a) and IX(b) of the NH DPA were not supported by the facts alleged. View "Bourgeois v. The TJX Companies, Inc." on Justia Law