Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC sought to condemn a 9.89-acre easement on Elizabeth Reynolds' 109-acre farmland in Roanoke County, Virginia, under the Natural Gas Act. The district court granted partial summary judgment and a preliminary injunction for immediate possession to Mountain Valley Pipeline, leaving the issue of just compensation unresolved. Reynolds submitted two expert reports to determine compensation, which the district court excluded, leading to a summary judgment in favor of Mountain Valley Pipeline.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia excluded Reynolds' expert reports, citing Rule 71.1(h) and Rule 702. The court found the first report speculative and the second unreliable due to insufficient data. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to Mountain Valley Pipeline, awarding just compensation based on the higher estimate of the pipeline company's experts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its application of Rule 71.1(h) and Rule 702. The appellate court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence should apply identically in eminent domain cases as in other cases, and the district court should not have conflated Rule 71.1(h) with Rule 702. The appellate court also determined that the district court should have made findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record when resolving contested factual issues under Rule 71.1(h). The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 9.89 Acres of Land" on Justia Law

Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (MVP) condemned a 0.32-acre access easement on Grace Terry's land in southwestern Virginia to deliver heavy equipment to a section of its pipeline. The key issue in this case is the amount of just compensation MVP must pay Terry for the easement. Terry argued that the easement significantly devalued her land, blocking the best hiking trail and citing recent below-market sales of neighboring properties affected by MVP's actions. The district court excluded Terry's testimony on damages and an expert report she submitted, leading to her appeal.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted MVP partial summary judgment and a preliminary injunction for immediate possession of the easement. The court excluded Terry's testimony on damages, finding it speculative and without a rational basis. It also excluded the expert report by Dennis Gruelle, applying a heightened admissibility standard and determining contested facts at the evidentiary stage. The court then granted MVP summary judgment, awarding Terry $10,409 in just compensation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding most of Terry's testimony and the Gruelle Report. The Fourth Circuit found that Terry's personal knowledge of her land and comparable sales were valid bases for her testimony. It also determined that the district court applied erroneous legal principles by using a heightened evidentiary standard for the expert report. The Fourth Circuit vacated the exclusion of the Gruelle Report and reversed the exclusion of most of Terry's testimony, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 0.32 Acres of Land" on Justia Law

Andre Le Doux was driving on Interstate 81 in Virginia when he encountered a sudden traffic standstill due to a torrential downpour. As he braked, a vehicle behind him pushed his van into another vehicle, leaving his van exposed in the left lane. Ervin Worthy, driving a Western Express tractor trailer, saw the heavy rain and braked, but could not stop in time and collided with Le Doux’s van, causing severe injuries to Le Doux.Le Doux sued Worthy for negligence and willful and wanton negligence, and Western Express for vicarious liability and negligent hiring. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia excluded expert testimony from Le Doux’s meteorologist and accident reconstructionist due to gaps in radar data and inaccurate GPS timestamps. The court also excluded testimony from Le Doux’s trucking expert, finding it unnecessary for the jury to understand the standard of care for a tractor trailer driver in rainy conditions. Additionally, the court dismissed Le Doux’s negligent hiring claim against Western Express, reasoning that since Worthy was acting within the scope of his employment, the claim was redundant.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s exclusion of the expert testimonies, agreeing that the gaps in data and potential jury confusion justified the decision. The court also upheld the exclusion of the trucking expert’s testimony, finding that the jury could understand the necessary standard of care without it. Finally, the court affirmed the dismissal of the negligent hiring claim, holding that since the jury found Worthy not negligent, Western Express could not be liable for negligent hiring. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings. View "Le Doux v. Western Express, Inc." on Justia Law

Banorte, a group of five associated entities of the Mexican bank Grupo Financiero Banorte, sued Cartograf S.A. de C.V. (Cartograf Mexico) in the Fourth Civil Court of Mexico City in 2021. Banorte alleged that Cartograf Mexico and its sole administrator, José Páramo Riestra, defaulted on loans and concealed assets. Banorte filed an ex parte application in the Eastern District of Virginia to conduct discovery on Cartograf Mexico’s American subsidiary, Cartograf USA, Inc., under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. The district court granted the application, allowing Banorte to serve Cartograf USA with a subpoena. Cartograf USA moved to quash the subpoena, but the district court denied the motion.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted Banorte’s application for discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, finding that the statutory requirements and discretionary factors set out in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. weighed in Banorte’s favor. The court allowed Banorte to serve subpoenas on Cartograf USA, seeking documents and deposition testimony related to Cartograf USA’s relationship with Cartograf Mexico and Páramo. Cartograf USA argued that the discovery was not for use in a foreign proceeding and that Banorte’s requests were made in bad faith, but the district court rejected these arguments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that Banorte satisfied the statutory requirements of § 1782, including the “for use” requirement, as the requested discovery had a reasonable possibility of being useful in the Mexican civil proceedings. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in analyzing the Intel factors, including the receptivity of the foreign tribunal and whether the request was an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court’s careful consideration of the factors and its decision to grant the application and deny the motion to quash were appropriate. View "Banco Mercantil Del Norte, S.A v. Cartograf USA, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, a Chapter 11 Trustee for BK Racing, LLC, initiated an adversary proceeding against multiple defendants, including Ronald and Brenda Devine, various family trusts, and corporate entities. The defendants were accused of obstructing the bankruptcy process by failing to comply with discovery obligations, including not producing required financial documents and records, despite multiple court orders.The bankruptcy court found that the defendants willfully disregarded their discovery obligations and engaged in a pattern of obstruction and delay. As a result, the court entered a default judgment against the defendants as a discovery sanction, awarding the plaintiff $31,094,099.89. The district court affirmed this decision, noting the defendants' repeated noncompliance and the necessity of deterrence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the lower courts' decisions, finding no abuse of discretion in the entry of default judgment. The court applied the Wilson factors, determining that the defendants acted in bad faith, caused significant prejudice to the plaintiff, necessitated deterrence, and that lesser sanctions would be ineffective. The court also affirmed the decision to pierce the corporate veil, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable, based on evidence that the corporate entities were mere instrumentalities of the Devines, lacking proper corporate formalities and used to siphon funds.The Fourth Circuit concluded that the bankruptcy court's findings were not clearly erroneous and that the default judgment and the amount awarded were appropriate given the defendants' egregious conduct. The decision of the district court was affirmed. View "Smith v. Devine" on Justia Law

Frank Harmon Black and his securities investment firm, Southeast Investments, N.C., Inc., are involved in an ongoing disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) in September 2015. The proceedings were based on allegations that Black and Southeast failed to establish and maintain an adequate broker supervisory system, failed to preserve business-related electronic correspondence, and submitted false documents and testimony to FINRA examiners, violating FINRA rules and federal securities laws. In March 2017, a FINRA hearing panel found Black and Southeast in violation of these rules and imposed fines and sanctions, including barring Black from associating with other FINRA member firms.Black and Southeast appealed the FINRA decision to the National Adjudicatory Council (NAC), which affirmed the findings but reduced the fines in May 2019. They then petitioned the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for review. On December 7, 2023, the SEC affirmed the NAC's decision regarding the supervisory and record retention violations but remanded the false testimony and fabricated documents issues to FINRA for further proceedings, determining that FINRA's failure to produce certain investigatory notes was not a harmless error.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the SEC's decision. The court concluded that the SEC's decision was not a final order because it remanded part of the case to FINRA for further proceedings. As a result, the court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the petition and dismissed it. The court emphasized that a final order must mark the consummation of the agency's decision-making process and result in legal consequences, which was not the case here. View "Black v. Securities and Exchange Commission" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed in substantial part the district court's issuance of a nationwide injunction as to Section 2(c) of the challenged Second Executive Order (EO-2), holding that the reasonable observer would likely conclude EO-2's primary purpose was to exclude persons from the United States on the basis of their religious beliefs. Section 2(c) reinstated the ninety-day suspension of entry for nationals from six countries, eliminating Iraq from the list, but retaining Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.Determining that the case was justiciable, the Fourth Circuit held that plaintiffs have more than plausibly alleged that EO-2's stated national security interest was provided in bad faith, as a pretext for its religious purpose. Because the facially legitimate reason offered by the government was not bona fide, the court no longer deferred to that reason and instead may look behind the challenged action. Applying the test in Lemon v. Kurtzman, the court held that the evidence in the record, viewed from the standpoint of the reasonable observer, created a compelling case that EO-2's primary purpose was religious. Then-candidate Trump's campaign statements revealed that on numerous occasions, he expressed anti-Muslim sentiment, as well as his intent, if elected, to ban Muslims from the United States. President Trump and his aides have made statements that suggest EO-2's purpose was to effectuate the promised Muslim ban, and that its changes from the first executive order reflect an effort to help it survive judicial scrutiny, rather than to avoid targeting Muslims for exclusion from the United States. These statements, taken together, provide direct, specific evidence of what motivated both executive orders: President Trump's desire to exclude Muslims from the United States and his intent to effectuate the ban by targeting majority-Muslim nations instead of Muslims explicitly. Because EO-2 likely fails Lemon's purpose prong in violation of the Establishment Clause, the district court did not err in concluding that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim. The court also held that plaintiffs will likely suffer irreparable harm; the Government's asserted national security interests do not outweigh the harm to plaintiffs; and the public interest counsels in favor of upholding the preliminary injunction. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a nationwide injunction was necessary to provide complete relief, but erred in issuing an injunction against the President himself. View "International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump" on Justia Law

The United States filed an application for prejudgment remedies under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (FDCPA), 28 U.S.C. 3001 et seq., seeking writs of attachment against personal and real property owned by defendants and writs of garnishment against bank accounts totaling approximately $16.7 million. The government argued that, because defendants violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b, and the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., defendants owed the United States at least $298 million. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's denial of their motions to quash the writs of attachment against real and personal property and writs of garnishment against two bank accounts. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the denial was an unreviewable interlocutory order. View "Bluewave Healthcare v. United States" on Justia Law

Bishop Charles G. vonRosenberg filed suit, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that Bishop Mark J. Lawrence violated the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., by falsely advertising himself to be the Bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina. The district court applied Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of America and Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., abstaining in favor of related state court proceedings. The court vacated on appeal, concluding that Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, not Brillhart and Wilton, governs abstention decisions in actions where the plaintiff seeks both declaratory and nondeclaratory relief. On remand, the district court again abstained. The court concluded that, because the state and federal cases involve different parties and different claims, the district court abused its discretion under Colorado River by abstaining in favor of the state court proceedings. Accordingly, the court vacated the abstention order and remanded for further proceedings. View "vonRosenberg v. Lawrence" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, veterans who received medical treatment and health care at the Dorn VAMC, filed separate actions against the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Dorn VAMC officials, alleging violations of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552(a) et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq. Plaintiffs sought to establish Article III standing based on the harm from the increased risk of future identity theft and the cost of measures to protect against it. The district court dismissed based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, concluding that plaintiffs failed to establish a non-speculative, imminent injury-in-fact for purposes of Article III standing. View "Beck v. McDonald" on Justia Law