Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Joel Aaron Burrell, a prisoner, filed a lawsuit against several correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Burrell sought to proceed in forma pauperis, which allows indigent prisoners to file lawsuits without prepaying filing fees. The district court denied his request, citing the three-strike rule under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which prevents prisoners from proceeding in forma pauperis if they have had three prior lawsuits dismissed for being frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. The district court identified three such dismissals in Burrell's case history and dismissed his current action when he did not pay the filing fee.Burrell appealed, arguing that two of the prior dismissals should not count as strikes. The first case was dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine, which prevents federal courts from interfering with ongoing state proceedings. The second case was dismissed after Burrell failed to amend his complaint following a court order that found his initial complaint failed to state a claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that a dismissal under Younger abstention does not count as a strike because it does not assess the merits of the complaint. Regarding the second case, the court determined that while a failure to amend following a finding of failure to state a claim can count as a strike, it should not be counted if the dismissal occurred after the current lawsuit was filed.The Fourth Circuit held that the district court erred in applying the three-strike rule to Burrell's case. Since Burrell had only one valid strike at the time he filed the current lawsuit, the district court's dismissal was vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Burrell v. Shirley" on Justia Law

Amanda Watts received two vaccines, Pneumovax 23 and Boostrix, at a CVS Pharmacy in 2017. She claimed that both vaccines were negligently administered in the same improper location on her arm, leading to a chronic pain condition. However, CVS is immune from suit for the administration of Boostrix under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Consequently, Watts's complaint focused solely on the alleged negligence in administering Pneumovax.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment to CVS, finding that Watts presented no evidence from which a jury could determine that her injury was caused by the Pneumovax vaccine rather than the Boostrix vaccine. The court also struck an errata sheet submitted by Watts's expert, Dr. Akhil Chhatre, which attempted to amend his deposition testimony to suggest that both vaccines contributed to Watts's injury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit agreed that Watts failed to provide evidence to establish that her injury was caused by the Pneumovax shot, as required to overcome CVS's immunity for the Boostrix shot. The court noted that both of Watts's experts could not definitively attribute her injury to the Pneumovax vaccine alone. The court also upheld the district court's decision to strike Dr. Chhatre's errata sheet, which materially altered his original testimony.The Fourth Circuit concluded that without evidence to separate the effects of the two vaccines, a jury could only speculate on the cause of Watts's injury. Therefore, Watts could not satisfy the causation element of her negligence claim, and the summary judgment in favor of CVS was affirmed. View "Watts v. Maryland CVS Pharmacy, LLC" on Justia Law

James Cooper was injured in a car accident in August 2019 while riding as a passenger in a car owned by Rick Huffman. Both Cooper and Huffman were employees of Pison Management, LLC, and were driving to a jobsite for work. Cooper's injuries exceeded the third-party driver's insurance limits, so he sought underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage under Pison's commercial automobile policy issued by Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Company. The policy provided $1 million in liability coverage for two vehicles owned by Pison and a class of non-owned vehicles but only offered UIM coverage for the owned vehicles. Erie denied Cooper's claim for UIM coverage.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of Cooper, holding that West Virginia Code § 33-6-31 required Erie to offer UIM coverage for all vehicles covered by the liability policy, including non-owned vehicles. The court issued a declaratory judgment that Cooper was entitled to $1 million in UIM coverage. Erie appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and certified a question of law to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. The West Virginia court concluded that West Virginia Code § 33-6-31 did not require Erie to offer UIM coverage for non-owned vehicles. The court determined that Cooper was not an "insured" under the statute because Pison, the named insured, did not own the vehicle in which Cooper was riding and thus could not consent to its use for UIM purposes.Applying the West Virginia court's interpretation, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment in favor of Cooper and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Erie. View "Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Company v. Cooper" on Justia Law

A group of current and former pretrial detainees filed a putative class action against Prince George’s County, Maryland, and 11 state court judges, alleging that their detentions and the policies leading to them were unconstitutional. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and compensatory damages, claiming violations of the Due Process Clause and the Maryland Constitution.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the judges and the county had absolute immunity from the plaintiffs’ claims for damages and an injunction, and that a declaratory judgment could not provide meaningful relief. The district court dismissed the judicial defendants based on absolute judicial immunity and dismissed the claims against the county based on quasi-judicial immunity. Additionally, the district court dismissed seven plaintiffs who had been released from pretrial detention, reasoning that they would not benefit from any available remedy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the district court’s dismissal of the judicial defendants but concluded that the dismissal should have been for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the absence of an Article III case or controversy. The court held that the judicial defendants were acting in an adjudicative capacity, not as adversaries, and thus there was no justiciable controversy. The court also reversed the district court’s dismissal of the claims against the county, holding that municipalities do not enjoy immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, including the reinstatement of the claims of the seven plaintiffs who had been released from pretrial detention. View "Frazier v. Prince Georges County" on Justia Law

Steve Kovachevich, a homebuyer, was required to purchase private mortgage insurance (PMI) when he took out a mortgage with a down payment of less than 20%. After a year, he requested his mortgage servicer, LoanCare, to cancel his PMI. LoanCare initially denied the request, stating he had not paid down enough of his mortgage to qualify for cancellation under the Homeowners Protection Act (HPA). However, LoanCare agreed to voluntarily cancel the PMI upon meeting certain conditions, which Kovachevich fulfilled. Subsequently, he sought a refund of the prepaid PMI premiums from the mortgage insurer, National Mortgage Insurance Corporation (NMIC), but was denied.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed Kovachevich’s claim under the HPA, ruling that he was not entitled to a refund of unearned premiums under § 4902(f) because his PMI was canceled voluntarily and not under the statutory benchmarks of the HPA. The court also dismissed his state-law claims of unjust enrichment and conversion, stating it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Kovachevich’s HPA claim, agreeing that § 4902(f) only mandates refunds for PMI canceled under the statutory benchmarks, not for voluntary cancellations. However, the appellate court vacated the dismissal of the state-law claims and remanded them to the district court to consider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. View "Kovachevich v. National Mortgage Insurance Corporation" on Justia Law

E.R., the appellant, filed a complaint against the Beaufort County School District, alleging that the district failed to respond appropriately to her reports of sexual abuse and harassment while she was a student. E.R. claimed she was sexually assaulted by three male students and subsequently bullied and harassed by other students. Despite reporting these incidents to school officials, she alleged that no appropriate action was taken.The case was initially filed in South Carolina state court, asserting claims under Title IX and state law for negligence and gross negligence. The school district removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss it, arguing that the claims were untimely under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), which has a two-year statute of limitations. The district court agreed, applying the SCTCA's statute of limitations to both the Title IX and state law claims, and dismissed the case as it was filed more than two years after E.R. turned 18.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the appropriate statute of limitations for Title IX claims is the state's general personal injury statute of limitations, not the SCTCA's two-year period. The court reasoned that Title IX claims should borrow the statute of limitations from the most analogous state law cause of action, which in this case is the general personal injury statute. Since South Carolina's general personal injury statute of limitations is three years, E.R.'s claims were timely.The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of E.R.'s complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "E.R. v. Beaufort County School District" on Justia Law

The case involves multiple plaintiffs who sued Khalifa Hifter under the federal Torture Victim Protection Act for his actions as the commander of the Libyan National Army. The plaintiffs sought to hold Hifter liable for alleged torture and extrajudicial killings of their family members in Libya. The lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia over a 15-month period.In the district court, Hifter moved to dismiss the first two cases, and the court granted those motions in part and denied them in part. Hifter later moved to dismiss the third case, and the court again granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The district court eventually consolidated all three cases for discovery and pretrial matters. After cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court dismissed all three suits with prejudice, citing lack of personal jurisdiction over Hifter.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed Hifter’s cross appeals in Nos. 24-1425, 24-1427, and 24-1429, as they merely sought affirmance of the district court’s judgments on alternative grounds. In Nos. 24-1422 and 24-1426, the court reversed the district court’s judgment, finding that Hifter waived his personal jurisdiction defense by failing to timely assert it in his pre-answer motions. The cases were remanded for further proceedings.In No. 24-1423, the Fourth Circuit concluded that Hifter properly raised a personal jurisdiction defense and that the district court correctly granted summary judgment due to the plaintiffs' failure to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. However, the court vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to modify the judgment to state that the dismissal is without prejudice. View "al-Suyid v. Hifter" on Justia Law

T.M. has a medical condition that causes psychosis when she ingests gluten. After an episode in 2023, she was involuntarily committed to Baltimore Washington Medical Center. Despite her and her father's request for voluntary admission, an administrative hearing led to her involuntary commitment. A clinical review panel approved forcibly injecting T.M. with antipsychotic medication, a decision affirmed by a Maryland administrative law judge. T.M. and the medical center later reached an oral agreement for her release, which was formalized in a consent order by a state court. The consent order required T.M. to follow certain conditions, including taking prescribed medications and dismissing other lawsuits.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed T.M.'s claims, citing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents federal courts from reviewing state court judgments. The court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over T.M.'s claims and dismissed the parents' claims for failure to state a claim. T.M.'s claims were dismissed with prejudice, while the parents' claims were dismissed without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of T.M.'s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The court held that T.M. was a state court loser seeking to overturn a state court judgment, which is barred by the doctrine. The court vacated the dismissal with prejudice and remanded with instructions to modify the judgment to dismiss T.M.'s claims without prejudice. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the parents' claims for failure to state a claim, noting that the complaint did not allege a violation of their First Amendment rights. View "T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation" on Justia Law

Hanan Elatr Khashoggi brought a lawsuit following the assassination of her husband, Jamal Khashoggi, alleging that her cell phone was unlawfully surveilled using spyware developed by NSO Group Technologies. She claimed that this surveillance, conducted by agents of Saudi Arabia and the UAE using NSO's Pegasus spyware, led to her husband's death. NSO, an Israeli company, moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over it.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted NSO's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court found that Khashoggi had not sufficiently alleged that NSO had directed any conduct at Virginia. The court noted that Khashoggi's claims did not establish a significant connection between NSO's actions and the state of Virginia, as the alleged surveillance was directed by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, not NSO itself.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit agreed that NSO had not purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting activities in Virginia. The court found that Khashoggi's allegations did not demonstrate that NSO had directed any conduct at Virginia, as the surveillance was carried out by third parties. Consequently, the court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. View "Khashoggi v. NSO Group Technologies Limited" on Justia Law

Eugene Kritter, an experienced helicopter pilot, owned and operated Kritter Cropdusting. While crop dusting over a farm in North Carolina, his helicopter collided with a low-hanging steel wire, resulting in his death. Kritter Cropdusting and Kritter’s estate filed a negligence lawsuit against the farm owners and operators, as well as Nutrien, the pesticide company that hired Kritter Cropdusting for the job.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court concluded that the farm owners and operators owed no duty of care to Kritter to remove or warn about the wire, as the risk was not reasonably foreseeable to them. The court also found that neither Nutrien nor its employee, Elmore, owed Kritter a duty of care. Additionally, the court rejected the argument that Kritter was contributorily negligent and found that the wire was not an open and obvious condition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because material questions of fact remained regarding whether the defendants owed a duty of care to Kritter. The court noted that under North Carolina law, issues of negligence are generally for the jury to decide, especially when facts are disputed or multiple reasonable inferences can be drawn. The court also found that the district court erred in concluding that the risk posed by the wire was not foreseeable and that Kritter’s death was incident to his work. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Kritter v. Mooring" on Justia Law