Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A publicly traded company, CoreCivic, which operates private prisons, faced scrutiny after the Bureau of Prisons raised safety and security concerns about its facilities. Following a report by the Department of Justice's Inspector General highlighting higher rates of violence and other issues in CoreCivic's prisons compared to federal ones, the Deputy Attorney General recommended reducing the use of private prisons. This led to a significant drop in CoreCivic's stock price and a subsequent shareholder class action lawsuit.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, early in the litigation, issued a protective order allowing parties to designate discovery materials as "confidential." This led to many documents being filed under seal. The Nashville Banner intervened, seeking to unseal these documents, but the district court largely maintained the seals, including on 24 deposition transcripts, without providing specific reasons for the nondisclosure.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court emphasized the strong presumption of public access to judicial records and the requirement for compelling reasons to justify sealing them. The court found that the district court had not provided specific findings to support the seals and had not narrowly tailored the seals to serve any compelling reasons. The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's order regarding the deposition transcripts and remanded the case for a prompt decision in accordance with its precedents, requiring the district court to determine if any parts of the transcripts meet the requirements for a seal within 60 days. View "Grae v. Corrections Corp. of Am." on Justia Law

EOG Resources, Inc. holds drilling rights to oil and gas beneath property owned by Lucky Land Management, LLC in Ohio. The dispute arose over whether EOG's drilling rights included the right to drill horizontally from Lucky Land's surface to adjacent properties. EOG sought a preliminary injunction to access the land, cut down trees, and start constructing drills. The district court granted the injunction, finding that EOG would likely succeed on the merits.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted EOG's request for a preliminary injunction, allowing EOG to access the land and begin drilling operations. The court found that EOG was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim and that the balance of equities and public interest favored granting the injunction. Lucky Land Management appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and disagreed with the district court's findings. The appellate court held that Lucky Land had the better interpretation of oil-and-gas law, which generally does not allow a lessee to use the surface of one property to drill into neighboring lands without explicit permission. The court also found that EOG would not suffer irreparable harm if it had to wait for the litigation to proceed, as any potential losses could be compensated with monetary damages. The court emphasized that preliminary injunctions are meant to prevent irreparable injuries and preserve the court's ability to issue meaningful final relief, not to serve as shortcuts to the merits. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's decision to grant the preliminary injunction. View "EOG Resources, Inc. v. Lucky Land Management, LLC" on Justia Law

Marina Debity brought claims against the Monroe County Board of Education for sex discrimination and retaliation under the Equal Pay Act (EPA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). Debity alleged that the Board offered her a lower salary than it had paid a male predecessor, Matthew Ancel, for the same job and retaliated by withdrawing her job offer when she requested equal pay.A jury found that the Board offered Debity less money for legitimate reasons unrelated to her sex and did not retaliate against her. Despite these findings, the jury awarded Debity over $195,000 in damages, likely due to poor instructions on the verdict form. The magistrate judge noticed the inconsistency but dismissed the jury without allowing objections. The magistrate judge later denied Debity's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, classifying the verdicts as special verdicts and reconciling the inconsistency by entering judgment based on the jury's answers to the interrogatories.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the magistrate judge presented the jury with a general verdict on the retaliation claims and a general verdict with interrogatories on the discrimination claims. The jury's answers to the interrogatories on the discrimination claims were consistent with each other but inconsistent with the general verdict. The court affirmed the magistrate judge's decision to enter judgment based on the interrogatories.Regarding the Board's affirmative defense to the discrimination claims, the court held that budget constraints and market forces of supply and demand each provided an independent basis to uphold the jury's verdict. Both reasons were legitimate business explanations for offering Debity a lower salary than Ancel. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of the Board on all claims. View "Debity v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ." on Justia Law

Karl Tobien, a door-to-door salesman, was attacked by a dog while working in Ohio. He filed two federal lawsuits: one against the homeowners in the Southern District of Ohio, which was dismissed by agreement, and another against Nationwide General Insurance Company in the Eastern District of Kentucky. Tobien claimed Nationwide violated Kentucky’s Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, acted in bad faith, and sought punitive damages after the company denied his insurance claim.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky dismissed Tobien’s lawsuit for improper venue, concluding that most relevant events occurred in Ohio. Tobien appealed, arguing that the Eastern District of Kentucky was a proper venue and that the district court should have transferred the case to the Southern District of Ohio instead of dismissing it.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and upheld the district court’s decision. The court determined that Tobien failed to show that a substantial part of the events giving rise to his claims occurred in the Eastern District of Kentucky. The court also found that transferring the case to the Southern District of Ohio would not be in the interest of justice, as Ohio law would apply and Tobien’s claims would fail under Ohio law. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Tobien’s lawsuit. View "Tobien v. Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Gina Burt filed a lawsuit against Playtika, Ltd. and Playtika Holding Corporation in Tennessee state court, seeking to recover alleged gambling losses incurred by Tennessee residents who played Playtika’s online games. Burt's claim was based on Tennessee Code Ann. § 29-19-105, which allows recovery of gambling losses. Playtika removed the case to federal court, invoking jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and traditional diversity jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee remanded the case to state court. The district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction because Burt’s suit was not a “class action” under CAFA, and the losses of the Tennessee players could not be aggregated to meet the amount in controversy requirement for traditional diversity jurisdiction. Playtika appealed the remand order under CAFA’s expedited removal appeal provision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s remand order. The appellate court held that Burt lacked Article III standing to proceed in federal court because she did not allege that she personally suffered any gambling loss. The court found that Burt’s claim to recover losses on behalf of other Tennessee residents did not satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for standing. Additionally, the court rejected Burt’s argument that she had standing under a qui tam theory, concluding that Tennessee Code Ann. § 29-19-105 is not a qui tam statute. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s decision to remand the case to state court. View "Burt v. Playtika, Ltd." on Justia Law

Misty Coleman alleges that she fell and broke her ankle after slipping on a wet shower floor in a county jail. She pursued constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and negligence claims under Ohio law against the county, corrections officers, and medical personnel. Coleman claimed that the slippery shower violated the Due Process Clause and that a county policy or custom was behind her poor medical care. She also questioned whether the county could invoke state-law immunity from her negligence claim at the pleading stage.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed all claims against all parties. The court found that Coleman failed to allege a plausible constitutional violation regarding the slippery shower and did not connect the inadequate medical care to a county policy or custom. The court also held that Ohio law granted immunity to Hamilton County on the negligence claim. The court allowed Coleman to conduct limited discovery to identify unnamed officers and nurses, but her subsequent amended complaint was dismissed as it was filed outside the statute of limitations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court's dismissal, holding that Coleman’s claims accrued on the date of her accident and that her amended complaint did not relate back to the original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The court also found that Coleman did not meet the requirements for equitable tolling, as she did not allege facts showing that she was intentionally misled or tricked into missing the deadline. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Coleman’s complaint. View "Coleman v. Hamilton County Bd. of County Commissioners" on Justia Law

Lamont Heard, a Michigan prisoner, claimed that prison officials retaliated against him for his litigation activities by transferring him to a different housing unit. He sought to sue the officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly violating his First Amendment rights. Heard was transferred on January 10, 2017, and filed a grievance the next day. After exhausting his administrative remedies, he filed a lawsuit on January 19, 2021, four years and nine days after the transfer.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed Heard's claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Heard then exhausted his remedies and refiled his lawsuit. The district court dismissed the refiled claim as untimely, reasoning that Michigan's tolling provision, which pauses the statute of limitations while a claim is pending in court, conflicted with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Michigan's tolling provision does not conflict with the PLRA's exhaustion requirement. The PLRA requires prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a federal lawsuit but does not address tolling. The court emphasized that federal courts have historically borrowed state statutes of limitations and tolling provisions for § 1983 suits. The court found that Michigan's tolling rule, which pauses the statute of limitations during a prior suit, is consistent with the PLRA and does not undermine its purposes. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment, allowing Heard's claim to proceed. View "Heard v. Strange" on Justia Law

Twenty-three Michigan landowners filed suit in the Western District of Michigan, seeking damages in excess of $10,000 for the claimed taking of their land for use as a public recreation trail, alleging: a declaratory judgment claim, a Fifth Amendment claim for just compensation under the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346 and a Fifth Amendment claim for just compensation under 28 U.S.C. 1331. The district court determined that the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491, and the Little Tucker Act, “vested the Court of Federal Claims with exclusive jurisdiction to hear all claims against the United States founded upon the Constitution where the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.” The court found no constitutional infirmity in this statutory framework, although the Tucker Act prevents the landowners from filing their claims for damages exceeding $10,000 in an Article III court, and litigants bringing claims in the Court of Federal Claims or in the district court under the Little Tucker Act are deprived of a jury trial. Because the landowners had failed to demonstrate that the Acts were unconstitutional, they had no basis for a declaratory judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. View "Brott v. United States" on Justia Law

After the city began using the Flint River as its water source in 2014, residents complained that the water was discolored and foul-smelling. There were reports of skin rashes, hair loss, and vomiting after drinking and bathing in the water. Many children were found to have high levels of lead in their blood stream. In 2016, plaintiffs filed this putative class action in Michigan state court, claiming negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and unjust enrichment. The defendants include several entities related to the city's expert water consultants. A defendant removed the case to district court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), asserting that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, the putative class comprised at least 100 members, and there was the minimal diversity of citizenship required by CAFA. The district court remanded, citing the local controversy exception, under which a district court must decline to exercise CAFA jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that the exception did not apply because other class actions had been filed in the previous three years, asserting the same or similar factual allegations against the defendants. View "Davenport v. Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2014-2015, Schmückle, a German citizen living in Germany, served as MAG Group’s CEO and managing director of MAG Germany. In 2015, MAG Holdings and MAG US sued (in Michigan) for breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference under Michigan law. In response to a challenge to jurisdiction, plaintiffs alleged that Schmückle “transacted business” within Michigan and that his “actions and activities led to consequences” in Michigan. Plaintiffs asserted that: Schmückle was responsible for “worldwide operations,” including MAG US; they (Michigan residents) reported directly to Schmückle by email and phone; Schmückle was involved in determining the Michigan facility's operations, budgets, work flow, and sales priorities; he charged MAG US an annual fee, used to pay part of his salary and expenses; he reallocated work from the “consistently profitable” Michigan facility to the “less-profitable” MAG Germany operations and negatively affected the profitability of MAG US in Michigan; and he told MAG US leaders to prepare to transfer $10 million to MAG Germany. Schmückle allegedly visited Michigan twice as CEO, maintains a residence in Oregon, and sits on the boards of U.S.-based three companies. The district court, without holding an evidentiary hearing, dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit reversed, stating that the record did not overcome the presumption that exercising personal jurisdiction over Schmückle in Michigan was reasonable. View "MAG IAS Holdings, Inc. v. Schmückle" on Justia Law