Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed a negligence suit in the Puerto Rico federal district court, naming as defendants the Municipality of Caguas, Consolidated Waste Service Corporation (ConWaste), and ConWaste’s insurance provider, stating that because he was domiciled in Texas and each of the defendants was domiciled in Puerto Rico, the district court had diversity jurisdiction over his state-law tort claims. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that Plaintiff was domiciled in Puerto Rico on the date his case was filed. The First Circuit reversed, holding that Texas was Plaintiff’s domicile at the date his lawsuit was filed. View "Aponte-Davila v. Municipality of Caguas" on Justia Law

Xolair, an injected drug approved by the FDA for treating allergies, is co-promoted in the United States by Genentech, Inc. and Roche Holdings, Inc. (Genentech) and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. and Novartis Corp. (Novartis). Relators brought qui tam actions against Genentech and Novartis under the False Claims Act (FCA) and related state statutes, alleging that Defendants caused healthcare providers to submit false claims to the government for reimbursement for Xolair. The district court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and then declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed those claims with prejudice. The First Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in denying Relators’ motion to amend; (2) did not err in dismissing the federal claims with prejudice; and (3) erred in dismissing the pendant state-law claims with prejudice. Remanded. View "Garcia v. Novartis Pharms. Corp." on Justia Law

Baskin-Robbins, a Delaware LLC, franchises ice cream stores. Alpenrose, a dairy products manufacturer incorporated in Oregon, is headquartered in Portland. In 1965, the two executed a territorial franchise agreement. Baskin-Robbins then had its principal place of business in California. Negotiations occurred in California. Between 1973 and 1985, the parties amended the Agreement three times; Baskin-Robbins remained in California. All material discussions concerning the amendments took place in Oregon. Around 1998 Baskin-Robbins' headquarters moved to Massachusetts. In 2001 and 2007, Alpenrose sent Baskin-Robbins, in Massachusetts, formal notice of its election to renew. In 2013, Alpenrose informed Baskin-Robbins that it did not intend to renew. The parties began negotiating Alpenrose's transition out of the arrangement. Negotiations stalled. Alpenrose wrote to Baskin-Robbins, stating that it wished to "revoke" its decision not to renew and requested another six-year extension, citing the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code 19.100.180(2)(i). Baskin-Robbins rejected Alpenrose's demands for renewal or compensation, then sought a declaratory judgment in the District of Massachusetts. That court dismissed for want of in personam jurisdiction, stating that "nothing in [the parties'] history . . . suggests that Alpenrose intended to purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting business within Massachusetts." The First Circuit reversed, “the assertion of jurisdiction satisfies both the relatedness and purposeful availment criteria, and the Gestalt factors do not counsel otherwise.” View "Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC v. Alpenrose Dairy, Inc." on Justia Law

This was Defendants’ fourth appeal from a lawsuit in which Plaintiff obtained a $23 million judgment based on an an indemnification clause in an agreement. Plaintiff sought to secure payment on that judgment by bringing suit against Defendants. Defendants then began a series of attempts to evade payment to Plaintiff and to elude the power of the courts. As relevant to this appeal, Defendants violated a preliminary injunction, resulting in a civil contempt order entered by the district court. The contempt order included an escalating fines provision. The First Circuit affirmed the contempt order and remanded with directions to amend the sanction order so that the fines cease to accrue at some total amount. Defendants appealed the revised contempt order issued by the district court, arguing that the underlying preliminary injunction expired by its own terms so the district court could no longer coerce compliance with it. Defendants failed to raise this argument at any time prior to the present appeal. The First Circuit denied the appeal, holding that Defendants’ belated challenge was implicitly foreclosed by the Court’s prior decisions. View "AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec AG" on Justia Law

In 2011, Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston (Bank), a federally-chartered entity pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1432(a), filed suit against multiple defendants, including Moody’s Corporation and Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (collectively, Moody’s), in Massachusetts state court alleging that various rating agencies falsely gave out triple-A ratings to mortgage-backed securities that were riskier than indicated by their ratings. Some of the defendants, but not Moody’s, removed the case to the Massachusetts federal district court on the grounds that the Bank was federally chartered. Moody’s then moved to dismiss on the ground that the Massachusetts district court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. The district judge ultimately granted the motion, concluding that personal jurisdiction was lacking after Daimler AG v. Bauman, and entered separate and final judgment in favor of Moody’s. The district judge also denied the Bank’s motion to sever its claims against Moody’s from those against the other defendants and transfer them to the Southern District of New York. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal order, holding that the district court erred in concluding that it lacked statutory power to transfer the claims against Moody’s to the Southern District of New York. Remanded. View "Fed. Home Loan Bank of Bost v. Moody's Corp." on Justia Law

Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. is an international media company that produces news and entertainment programming through a proprietary mobile software application (the “App”). Plaintiff downloaded and installed the App on his Android mobile device. Every time Plaintiff watched a video clip on the App, Gannett shared information about Plaintiff with Adobe Systems Incorporated. Plaintiff brought this putative class-action lawsuit against Gannett for allegedly disclosing information about him to a third party in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). The district court dismissed the action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), concluding that that information disclosed by Gannett was “personally identifiable information” (PII) under the VPPA but that Plaintiff was not a “consumer” protected by the VPPA. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the complaint adequately alleged that Plaintiff was a “consumer” under the VPPA. Remanded. View "Yershov v. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a civil rights action against the City of Lawrence after being sexually assaulted by one of the City’s police officers. The City made a Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 offer of judgment that was silent as to whether that amount was inclusive of Plaintiff’s costs or not. Within the fourteen-day period for acceptance, the City sent an “amended” offer of judgment containing the same language as the first offer but also stating that the offer was inclusive of costs and attorneys’ fees. Before the expiration of the fourteen-day period, Plaintiff purported to accept the unamended version of the offer and informed the City she would be moving separately for fees and costs. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed the unamended offer, her purported acceptance, and proof of service with the district court. The district court granted the City’s motion to strike the filing on the ground that Plaintiff’s acceptance was invalid. The district court then granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that the police officer was not acting “under color of state law” in committing the assault on Plaintiff. The First Circuit reversed, holding that Plaintiff’s purported acceptance of the City’s original offer was valid and that the offer was unambiguously exclusive of both costs and attorneys’ fees. View "LaPierre v. City of Lawrence" on Justia Law

Defendants were business entities that organize physically challenging obstacle course events in locations throughout the United States. The four named Plaintiffs registered to participate in one of those events. Plaintiffs filed suit in Massachusetts superior court alleging that they were unable to participate in the event because of a second change of location and that Defendants refused to refund Plaintiffs’ registration fees. Plaintiffs sought relief on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons. Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that removal was permitted under the Class Action Fairness Act because the matter in controversy exceeded $5 million. Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court arguing that Defendant failed to show that over $5 million was in controversy. The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to state court. The district court then dismissed the case and compelled mediation and arbitration of the dispute. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the district court erred in concluding that Defendants met their burden of showing that over $5 million was in controversy in this matter. Remanded with instructions to remand the case to state court for lack of jurisdiction. View "Pazol v. Tough Mudder Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was shot and wounded in the vicinity of San Lorenzo, Puerto Rico, after one of several police vehicles closely approached him. Plaintiff plausibly alleged that he had been shot by a police officer. Plaintiff filed suit seeking damages against named and unnamed members of the Puerto Rico Police Department (PRPD), the San Lorenzo municipal police, and the Puerto Rico Department of Justice. While Defendants’ motions to dismiss were pending, the PRPD produced documents indicating, for the first time, the identity of the shooter. The district court subsequently denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss, concluding that Plaintiff’s supervisory liability and conspiracy claims failed to satisfy the minimum requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The First Circuit reversed the judgment of dismissal as to the superintendent of the PRPD at the time of the shooting and affirmed the judgment in all other respects, holding (1) Plaintiff’s supervisory liability claim against the supervisor crossed the plausibility threshold; (2) the district court did not err in dismissing the supervisory claims against the other supervisory defendants; and (3) Defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal were waived. View "Guadalupe-Baez v. Police Officers A-Z" on Justia Law

Father, a Florida resident, filed this diversity suit against Daughter, a Massachusetts resident, in the District of Massachusetts, alleging that Daughter, to whom he had given a power of attorney, breached her fiduciary duty to him. The jury returned a verdict in Father’s favor. Daughter appealed, and Father cross-appealed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in denying Daughter’s motion for judgment as a matter of law; and (2) did not err in awarding Father prejudgment interest from the date that he filed this lawsuit rather than the date Daughter breached her fiduciary duty. View "Berkowitz v. Berkowitz" on Justia Law