Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Appellant UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. was sued in the Southern District of New York and filed a third-party complaint against Appellee EVA Airways Corporation, seeking indemnification and contribution. The district court granted EVA’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. UPS appealed, arguing that EVA was subject to specific personal jurisdiction based on both New York’s long-arm statute and the Montreal Convention.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court held that Appellant UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. was sued in the Southern District of New York and filed a third-party complaint against Appellee EVA Airways Corporation, seeking indemnification and contribution. The district court granted EVA’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. UPS now appeals, arguing that EVA was subject to specific personal jurisdiction based on both New York’s long-arm statute and the Montreal Convention. View "UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. v. EVA Airways Corporation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a Section 1983 claim against prison officials for their conduct during an electrical fire at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. Meanwhile, the prison officials claim that Plaintiff received a denial but failed to appeal. The district court determined that Plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies and granted summary judgment to the officials. Plaintiff claimed that he received a denial and then appealed through the second and third stages of review.The Second Circuit vacated. The court explained that drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies. The prison officials may have mistakenly failed to consolidate Plaintiff’s grievance with those of the other inmates who were affected by the electrical fire—in a possible violation of state regulations requiring full consolidation. Plaintiff’s declaration is consistent with a belief that his grievance was denied as part of the consolidated group of grievants. He may have appealed that denial, but the prison system might not have a record of his appeal because it failed to record the denial of his initial grievance in the first place. Plaintiff’s declaration—combined with (1) the undisputed evidence that he filed an initial grievance, (2) the absence of documentary evidence that his complaint was ever denied, and (3) the apparent failure of the prison officials to consolidate his complaint with those of the other inmates—creates a dispute of material fact as to whether Plaintiff actually did pursue all administrative remedies that were “available” to him. 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(a). View "Garcia v. Heath" on Justia Law

Plaintiff leased a Subaru Forester in November 2018. Defendant Trans Union, LLC received certain information about the lease and reported that information on Sessa’s credit report. In particular, Trans Union reported that Plaintiff owed a “balloon payment” at the end of the lease term -- a payment that the terms of the lease did not, in fact, require. Plaintiff sued Trans Union under section 1681e(b) of the FCRA, which requires credit reporting agencies (“CRAs”), like Trans Union, to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information” in a consumer’s credit report. 15 U.S.C. Section 681e(b). The district court granted Trans Union summary judgment, reasoning that Plaintiff's credit report could not be considered “inaccurate” under section 1681e(b) because the question of whether Plaintiff owed a balloon payment amounted to a legal, rather than factual, dispute.The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded. The court concluded that section 1681e(b) does not incorporate a threshold inquiry as to whether an alleged inaccuracy is “legal” or “factual” in nature. The court, therefore, determined that the district court erred by ending its analysis after it found that the accuracy of the reported balloon payment amounted to a legal dispute and was, therefore, not actionable under section 1681e(b). View "Sessa v. Trans Union, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendants are the City of Niagara Falls ("Niagara Falls"), its water board, and various companies (collectively, "Defendants") tasked with remediation of hazardous waste disposal sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("Superfund"). Plaintiffs -- members of three families residing in Niagara Falls -- brought this action in the State of New York Supreme Court, County of Niagara, in 2012, seeking damages arising from purported deficiencies in Defendants' remediation of one Superfund site, the Love Canal. Between 2013 and 2017, 18 identical complaints were filed by other plaintiffs. In 2013, Defendants removed two of the 19 cases -- including this one -- to the court below on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, but the district court remanded the cases to state court. The cases remained in state court until 2020 when Plaintiffs in all 19 cases filed identical amended complaints. The amended complaints alleged additional sources of injury. Defendants again removed the 19 cases, this time on the basis of both federal officer and federal question jurisdiction. The district court held that the removal was untimely and again remanded the cases to state court. Defendants appealed.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiffs continue to allege the same injuries against the same Defendants, caused by the same toxins, and resulting in the same damages. The amended complaint highlighted only additional sources of already-alleged injury. The changes in Plaintiffs' pleadings 20 are not substantial, and the amendments did not result in essentially new lawsuits. View "Abbo-Bradley, et al. v. City of Niagara Falls, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution, sued pro se under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that the defendants failed for years to provide him with adequate medical care for painful infections and lesions on his scalp, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. His initial complaint (“Initial Complaint”) named five administrators (collectively, the “Administrator Defendants”) and three John Doe medical professionals. That complaint was dismissed sua sponte prior to service on the defendants and without leave to amend as to the administrators. An Amended Complaint omitted the administrators (no leave to amend having been given as to them) and named in addition three nurse defendants.   The Second Circuit vacated and remanded. The court concluded that the appeal from the judgment brings up for review the dismissal of both complaints, that the Initial Complaint should not have been dismissed against the Administrator Defendants on the ground of frivolousness prior to service and without leave to amend, and that the Amended Complaint should not have been dismissed on the qualified immunity ground adduced by the district court. The court explained that it was error to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for failure to satisfy the objective component of the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard. While it may be that Defendants did not act with “deliberate indifference” or that some or all of the conduct can be classified as malpractice at worst, the district court did not pass on those issues, and the court wrote that it will not consider them now. View "Collymore v. Commissioner of D.O.C." on Justia Law

Twenty-eight individuals and businesses commenced this citizen suit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), which creates a private right of action against any entity that has “contributed . . . to the past or present handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment.” Plaintiffs complained of elevated levels of radiation detected on their land and seek to hold responsible three entities that operated nearby chemical plants during the twentieth century. The district court dismissed their complaints, holding, among other things, that the radioactive materials found on the plaintiffs’ properties fall outside the scope of RCRA because they were recycled industrial byproducts rather than discarded waste. Defendants raised a host of additional arguments in support of dismissal.   The Second Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The court explained that as to Defendants Union Carbide Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation, the complaint plausibly alleged the elements of a citizen suit under RCRA, or the Plaintiffs have identified extrinsic evidence that may render amendment fruitful. However, as against defendant Bayer CropScience Inc., there are no particularized allegations from which liability can reasonably be inferred. The court reasoned that there is one probative allegation implicating Bayer: Stauffer’s Lewiston plant was located within 2,000 feet of the Robert Street properties and within a mile of four of the Plaintiffs’ other properties. But proximity alone is insufficient to make Bayer’s contribution plausible. View "Talarico Bros. Bldg. Corp., et al. v. Union Carbide Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Respondent the State of Libya (“Libya”) appealed from a district court judgment granting Petitioner Olin Holdings Limited’s (“Olin”) petition to confirm an arbitration award issued under a bilateral investment treaty between Libya and the Republic of Cyprus and denying Libya’s cross-motion to dismiss the petition on forum non-conveniens grounds. On appeal, Libya’s primary argument is that the district court erred by declining to independently review the arbitrability of Olin’s claims before confirming the final award.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court held that Libya was not entitled to de novo review of the arbitral tribunal’s decisions because it “clearly and unmistakably” agreed to submit questions of arbitrability to the arbitrators in the first instance. The court further concluded that the district court properly confirmed the final award and rejected Libya’s cross-motion to dismiss the petition. The court explained that regarding the public and private interest factors, the district court held that Libya fell well short of satisfying its heavy burden because it “failed to identify even one” factor that weighed in favor of dismissal. On appeal, Libya makes “no persuasive argument identifying an error in the factual or legal components of the district court’s discretionary decision.” View "Olin Holdings Ltd. v. State of Libya" on Justia Law

Respondent is a former employee who won a judgment in Argentina's National Court of Labor Appeals against Citibank, N.A. Petitioner, the Argentinian branch of Citibank, N.A., filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association and brought the proceedings below. The district court compelled arbitration, preliminarily enjoined the employee from enforcing the Argentinian judgment against Petitioner, and held Respondent in contempt of court. It also denied his motion to dismiss.   The Second Circuit reversed and remanded. The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition. Therefore, the district court was without authority to issue its orders in this case. The court reversed the district court's orders -- including its order to compel arbitration, the preliminary injunction it entered against Respondent, its order finding Respondent in contempt, and its order requiring Respondent to pay the Branch's attorneys' fees and costs. The court concluded that because the Branch has not shown it enjoys independent legal existence and Citibank has not sought to substitute itself or join this action as the real party in interest, there has been no party adverse to Respondent. Without adverse parties, there can be no subject matter jurisdiction under Article III. View "The branch of Citibank, N.A., established in the Republic of Argentina v." on Justia Law

Third-Party Plaintiff Dynasty Healthcare, LLC, a medical billing firm, claimed that a Medicare Administrative Contractor (“MAC”) negligently processed and misclassified the enrollment and payment application of one of Dynasty’s clients, a medical services supplier, and that. As a result, the client was underpaid for providing Medicare services. When the client sued Dynasty for the error, Dynasty sued the MAC, blaming it for the error. The district court dismissed Dynasty’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Dynasty failed to pursue administrative channels through the United  States Department of Health and Human Services before seeking judicial review. At issue on appeal is whether Dynasty’s claims “arise under” the Medicare Act, such that the administrative channeling requirement set forth in 42 U.S.C. 14 Section 405(h) applies; and second, if so, whether the district court nonetheless had jurisdiction based on a narrow exception to the  Medicare Act’s jurisdiction stripping provision recognized in Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the claims arise under the Medicare Act and that the Illinois Council exception does not apply to these claims. The court explained that Dynasty is not entitled to the exception because Retina’s financial interests in the claims alleged in this case were aligned with Dynasty’s interests at all relevant times, and Retina had both the incentive and the ability to seek administrative review. That Retina pursued a different course is irrelevant to the court's analysis under Illinois Council’s “objective inquiry.” View "Dynasty Healthcare, LLC v. Nat'l Gov't Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Deltech Corp. (“Deltech”), a chemical manufacturer, joins here with Stolt-Nielsen USA, Inc., and Stolt Tank Containers B.V. (together, “Stolt”), a shipping concern, to challenge the district court’s determination that they alone bear liability for damages caused by an explosion and fire that took place in June 2012 aboard the ocean-going vessel M/V MSC Flaminia. In the first phase of a three-part proceeding, the district court addressed the causes of the explosion. It determined that the decision to ship DVB-80 from New Orleans Terminal rather than a northeastern port, the early filling of the DVB-80 containers and their early transport to New Orleans Terminal, the conditions in which the tanks of DVB-80 were kept at New Orleans Terminal, and their placement and stowage onboard the Flaminia were the primary causes of the explosion. It exculpated other parties to the shipping transaction from legal liability. It is this decision that Deltech and Stolt challenge now in an interlocutory appeal.   The Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court reversed the district court’s determination that Deltech and Stolt are strictly liable under Section 4(6) of the Carriage of Goods at Sea Act (“COGSA”), but the court affirmed its ruling that Deltech and Stolt are liable under a failure-to-warn theory pursuant to Section 4(3).  As to the other defendants, the court affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the carrier and related shipowner interests were not negligent in their treatment of the shipment and that New Orleans Terminal too, was not negligent. The court also affirmed the district court’s determination that Stolt has not stated a claim against its subcontractor. View "In re: M/V MSC Flaminia" on Justia Law