Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Benjamin Hoskins and his wife, Leanne Rodgers, participated in a telemarketing operation that defrauded consumers of more than $130 million by selling worthless “business coaching” services. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) obtained a judgment against Hoskins for over $130 million and against Rodgers for approximately $1.5 million, reflecting the proceeds they received from the scam. Hoskins and Rodgers took steps to hinder collection by transferring assets through trusts and shell entities, including a residence in Las Vegas held via a trust in which they were both trustees and beneficiaries.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada initially blocked the FTC’s attempts to enforce the judgment, concluding that Nevada’s six-year statute of limitations for enforcement of judgments barred the FTC’s action against Rodgers. The court also quashed a writ of execution the FTC obtained under the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act (FDCPA), reasoning that Nevada law required a separate action to prove the trust holding the property was Rodgers’s alter ego before the property could be levied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed both of the district court’s rulings. The Ninth Circuit held that the FDCPA preempts inconsistent state statutes of limitations and has no time limit for collecting debts owed to the federal government by writ of execution. The court also determined that the judgment against Rodgers, which is payable to the FTC, qualifies as a “debt” under the FDCPA, regardless of whether the proceeds are ultimately distributed to victims. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit held that the FTC was not required to file a separate alter ego action under state law to levy property held in trust; under the FDCPA, the FTC may levy any property in which the judgment debtors have a substantial nonexempt interest. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. HOSKINS" on Justia Law

In 2017, an investment entity loaned approximately 160 million Chinese yuan to an individual, who failed to repay the loan. The lender obtained an arbitral award against the borrower from the Beijing Arbitration Commission for around 150 million yuan. A Singaporean court later ordered the borrower to pay the award, but he still did not comply. The lender, knowing the borrower had been living in California for about two years, sought to enforce the foreign arbitral award in the United States under the Federal Arbitration Act by filing a petition in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Attempts to serve process directly on the borrower at his California residence were unsuccessful. Eventually, the petition was left with another adult at the residence, mailed, and emailed to the borrower, who later acknowledged receiving notice.The borrower moved to dismiss the case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, arguing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) that the court lacked personal jurisdiction because his domicile was China and the underlying dispute had no connection to California. He did not raise a defense under Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. The district court found that it had general personal jurisdiction over the borrower based on his physical presence in California and confirmed the arbitral award.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require that presence-based personal jurisdiction be conditioned on service of process on the defendant’s person; other means of service are sufficient if the defendant is physically present in the forum state. The court declined to address the sufficiency of service of process because the borrower had waived this argument by not raising it in district court. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment. View "SHENZHEN ZEHUIJIN INVESTMENT CENTER V. YINGKUI" on Justia Law

An employee of The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. worked remotely as a Managerial Senior Consultant. After the employer instituted a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy requiring all employees to be vaccinated or to obtain a valid exemption, the employee requested a religious exemption, citing her beliefs as a Christian Jew and referencing relevant religious texts. The employer initially granted her a provisional exemption but later required more information to assess the sincerity of her beliefs. When she did not fully answer the supplemental questions, particularly declining to disclose information about her medical history, the employer revoked her exemption and terminated her employment for noncompliance with the vaccine mandate.After her termination, the employee filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations of Title VII and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), as well as a claim under the California Constitution. The district court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss her statutory claims, holding that she had failed to allege that she adequately notified the employer of the conflict between her religious beliefs and the vaccine mandate. The court reasoned that her initial exemption request and responses to supplemental questions provided insufficient notice and dismissed the complaint.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the employee’s allegations regarding notice of a religious conflict. The Ninth Circuit held that to satisfy the notice requirement for a prima facie case of religious accommodation under Title VII and FEHA, an employee must provide enough information for the employer to understand an actual conflict between religious beliefs and work requirements. The court found that the employee’s allegations met this standard at the pleading stage, reversed the district court’s dismissal of her statutory claims, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "WEISS V. PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC." on Justia Law

Several unions representing approximately 800,000 federal civilian employees challenged an executive order issued by the President in March 2025. This order, Executive Order 14,251, invoked statutory authority to exclude various federal agencies and subdivisions from collective bargaining rights, citing national security concerns. The agencies affected included the Departments of State, Justice, Veterans Affairs, and others, and the order was accompanied by White House and Office of Personnel Management statements which asserted that union activities impeded national security functions. The unions alleged that the President’s action constituted unlawful retaliation against them for engaging in protected First Amendment activities, including lawsuits and public criticism of the Administration.The case originated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. There, the judge granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining the enforcement of Executive Order 14,251 on the grounds that the unions raised a serious question as to whether the order was issued in retaliation for their protected speech. The district court focused on statements in the White House’s supporting materials, finding these reflected hostility toward the unions’ activities. The court did not address the merits of the unions’ other claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the district court had jurisdiction to hear the unions’ claims, rejecting the government’s argument that the unions were required to pursue administrative remedies before the Federal Labor Relations Authority. However, the Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that, even if the unions made a prima facie showing of retaliation, the government demonstrated that the President would have issued the order regardless of the unions’ protected conduct, due to legitimate national security concerns. Because the unions did not show a likelihood of success or serious questions on the merits, the preliminary injunction was vacated. View "AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO V. TRUMP" on Justia Law

The case involves Orlonzo Hedrington, who underwent heart surgery and subsequent rehabilitation at a Veterans Administration medical center in California. Hedrington alleged that, during his discharge, he was sexually assaulted by nursing staff and administered drugs to disguise the assault. He filed a timely administrative claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs, which was denied. Hedrington then filed a timely lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), claiming negligence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California first reviewed Hedrington’s timely FTCA action (“Hedrington I”). The United States moved for summary judgment, raising issues related to judicial estoppel and standing due to Hedrington’s bankruptcy proceedings. After the bankruptcy trustee was substituted as plaintiff, the district court denied the United States’s summary judgment motion. Later, Hedrington filed a second, untimely pro se lawsuit (“Hedrington II”), which was removed to the same district court. The court dismissed Hedrington II as time-barred under the FTCA. Subsequently, the United States moved for summary judgment in Hedrington I, asserting claim preclusion based on the judgment in Hedrington II. The district court granted summary judgment on both claim preclusion and insufficient evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Hedrington I was not barred by claim preclusion. Following Filice v. United States, the Ninth Circuit applied California claim preclusion law, under which a dismissal for untimeliness does not have claim preclusive effect. Additionally, the court found that applying claim preclusion here would result in manifest injustice, triggering California’s public policy exception. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment on claim preclusion and remanded for further proceedings. View "HEDRINGTON V. USA" on Justia Law

In June 2020, following the murder of George Floyd, protestors established the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP), occupying a sixteen-block area in Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood. In response, the Seattle Police Department abandoned its East Precinct and significantly reduced police presence in the affected area, including Cal Anderson Park. The protests and encampments continued to cause disruption, vandalism, and crime for months, with CHOP forcibly disbanded on July 1, 2020, but neighborhood disturbances persisting until December 2020. Two businesses located near Cal Anderson Park, one a restaurant and the other a property owner, claimed that the City’s actions and inaction led to severe economic losses, including lost revenue, property damage, and tenant departures.Previously, these businesses were absent putative class members in the Hunters Capital, LLC v. City of Seattle class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, which raised similar claims. After class certification was denied and the case settled, the businesses filed individual lawsuits in April and June 2023, consolidated in the district court. The district court dismissed the state-created danger and Takings Clause claims, and found their nuisance claims untimely under the applicable two-year statute of limitations, but did not initially decide on equitable tolling pending further guidance from the Washington Supreme Court. After the Campeau v. Yakima HMA, LLC decision, the district court dismissed the nuisance claims and entered final judgment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the state-created danger and Takings Clause claims, holding that the state-created danger doctrine does not extend to purely economic harm and that the cessation of police services did not constitute a compensable taking. However, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of the nuisance claims, holding that equitable tolling under American Pipe is available under Washington law, and remanded for further proceedings on those claims. View "3PAK LLC V. CITY OF SEATTLE" on Justia Law

A Mexican national who entered the United States unlawfully in 1992 married a U.S. citizen, and together they had three children who are U.S. citizens. In seeking to obtain lawful permanent residency, the noncitizen husband traveled to Mexico for a required consular interview. After the interview, the consular officer denied his visa application, citing 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) (“3A2”) and concluding there was reason to believe he was a member of a known criminal organization. The denial notice referenced a review of interview statements, law enforcement information, the immigration record, and all documents submitted. The applicant had no criminal record and disputed gang affiliation, contending that his tattoos were the basis for suspicion.The couple filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, asserting that the visa denial was based solely on the noncitizen’s tattoos, violated their First Amendment rights, and that 3A2 was unconstitutionally vague. The district court dismissed the case, finding the noncitizen could not overcome the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, and that the U.S. citizen spouse had not plausibly alleged the absence of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the visa denial. The court also rejected the vagueness challenge to 3A2.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the noncitizen could not rely on his own First Amendment rights to challenge the visa denial, but the U.S. citizen spouse’s First Amendment right to receive information was implicated, triggering the narrow Mandel exception to consular nonreviewability. Nevertheless, applying the limited review allowed, the court found the government provided a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for denial, the applicants did not show bad faith, and the relevant statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "SANCHEZ GONZALEZ V. DEPARTMENT OF STATE" on Justia Law

A child attended the Ventura Unified School District from 2012 to 2021. During this time, the district performed several psychoeducational assessments, identifying the child as having a specific learning disability but failing to assess for autism. The child’s parents, aware of his persistent academic and behavioral struggles, repeatedly collaborated with the district, sought private assessments, and requested additional services, which were denied. The child was ultimately diagnosed with autism in 2021, after which the parents initiated legal action seeking remedies for allegedly inadequate education dating back to 2012.After the parents filed a due process complaint in 2021, an Administrative Law Judge concluded that claims for services before April 8, 2019, were time-barred under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA) two-year statute of limitations, finding the parents knew or should have known of the district’s failure to assess for autism and of the child’s inadequate education before that date. The ALJ awarded relief only for the period after April 8, 2019. The parents then sought further review in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which reversed the ALJ. The district court held that the statute of limitations did not begin until the autism diagnosis in 2021, reasoning the parents lacked the requisite knowledge to challenge the district’s actions earlier. The court also found both statutory exceptions to the limitations period applied and awarded remedies for the 2012–2019 period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court. The court held that the IDEA’s two-year statute of limitations begins when parents knew or should have known both of the district’s action or inaction and that their child was being denied a free appropriate public education. It concluded that the parents’ claims for pre-2019 educational services were untimely. The appellate court vacated the district court’s remedial orders and remanded for further proceedings regarding attorneys’ fees. View "J. R. V. VENTURA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT" on Justia Law

Several individuals alleged that Google collected and misused the private browsing data of Chrome users who utilized Incognito mode, despite Google’s representations about the privacy of this feature. In June 2020, five plaintiffs brought a putative class action on behalf of these users, seeking both injunctive relief and damages. After extensive discovery, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California certified a class for injunctive relief but denied certification for a damages class, finding the plaintiffs had not shown that common issues predominated over individual ones.Following the denial of damages class certification, the named plaintiffs sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit under Rule 23(f), but the petition was denied. The case proceeded, and as trial approached, the parties settled: Google agreed to change its policies, the named plaintiffs would arbitrate their individual damages claims, and they waived their rights to appeal the denial of damages class certification. The settlement explicitly stated that absent class members were not releasing damages claims or appellate rights. Several months after the settlement, a group of 185 Chrome users, referred to as the Salcido plaintiffs, moved to intervene to preserve absent class members’ appellate rights regarding damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the intervention motion. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the intervention motion untimely. Applying the circuit’s traditional three-part test for intervention—considering the stage of the proceedings, prejudice to other parties, and the reason for and length of delay—the court found that intervention at this late stage would prejudice the existing parties, that the delay was unjustified, and that the timing weighed against intervention. The denial of the motion to intervene was therefore affirmed. View "BROWN V. SALCIDO" on Justia Law

A former mortgage underwriter sued her employer under the False Claims Act, alleging that the company submitted false certifications in a federal mortgage insurance program. The government declined to intervene and unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the case. After years of litigation, the parties reached a settlement: the employer agreed to pay $38.5 million, with a portion going to the plaintiff and the remainder to the United States Treasury. The settlement specifically excluded the plaintiff’s claims for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs, leaving them unresolved.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved the settlement in January 2023, dismissing the substantive claims but expressly keeping the attorneys’ fees issue pending. Months of disputes ensued over the amount of attorneys’ fees. In May 2024, the district court awarded the plaintiff over $8.5 million in attorneys’ fees and approximately $89,000 in expenses. The plaintiff argued that postjudgment interest on these amounts should accrue from the date of the settlement approval, since her entitlement to fees was established then. The district court disagreed, holding that interest should only begin to accrue from the date the fees were actually awarded.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that postjudgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) accrues only from the entry of a “money judgment,” which requires both identification of the parties and a definite, ascertainable amount owed. Because the district court’s earlier order approving the settlement did not specify the amount of attorneys’ fees, it was not a “money judgment.” Therefore, interest begins accruing only from the order that set the fee amount. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. View "THROWER V. ACADEMY MORTGAGE CORPORATION" on Justia Law