Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

This case arose out of an underlying action to enforce the health benefits provisions of two court-approved settlement agreements. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court held that a motion for preliminary injunction filed before the act to be enjoined has occurred, and subsequently intended to restore the status quo once it has been disturbed, was not moot. The court also held that the district court had jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claim pursuant to Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). On the merits, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits; that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction; and that the balance of the equities and the public interest favor an injunction. View "Di Biase v. SPX Corp." on Justia Law

After a dispute arose regarding DynCorp's billing practices, Northrop Grumman filed suit against DynCorp in Virginia state court seeking to compel DynCorp to provide documentation to substantiate DynCorp's invoices. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order remanding the case to state court, holding that Northrop Grumman filed an untimely notice of removal after demonstrating a clear intent to pursue the case to completion in the state court. View "Northrop Grumman Technical Services, Inc. v. DynCorp International LLC" on Justia Law

When Joseph Morris died of mesothelioma, his family and personal representative filed suit against Foster Wheeler and others in Maryland state court. After removal to federal court, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court because Foster Wheeler did not make a sufficient showing that it had a colorable federal defense and that, in any event, the conduct for which it was sued was not causally connected to official authority. The Fourth Circuit reversed and held that the district court applied the wrong standard for determining removability under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1), and that Foster Wheeler met the statute's requirements. The court remanded for the district court to determine in the first instance whether Foster Wheeler's removal was timely noticed. View "Sawyer v. Foster Wheeler LLC" on Justia Law

A California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation, Abella, sought relief from the enforcement of a final class action judgment against MI Windows entered in this multidistrict litigation. The district court rejected Abella's arguments that the district court lacked authority to enjoin its prosecution of the state action against MI Windows and that Abella should not be bound by the class action judgment because of the excusable neglect of its counsel in overlooking the opt-out deadline. The Fourth Circuit affirmed and held that the district court's injunction was justified by the "relitigation exception" of the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. 2283, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the neglect of Abella's counsel was not excusable. View "Abella Owners’ Ass'n v. MI Windows & Doors, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of Wells Fargo's motion to set aside the bankruptcy court's order. Wells Fargo filed the motion two years after the bankruptcy court cancelled its deed of trust covering a piece of real property, and several months after the property was sold in foreclosure to a bona fide purchaser for value. The court held that Wells Fargo failed to carry its burden under FRCP 60(b) by filing its motion within a reasonable time. Even if Wells Fargo did satisfy Rule 60(b)'s threshold requirements, it still did not meet the requirements of that Rule's enumerated sections for relief. View "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. AMH Roman Two NC, LLC" on Justia Law