Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The Adamses want to build a home on their Michigan property, but their neighbors, the Schulers, believe that their plans violate a restrictive covenant running with the lakefront land. A state court granted the Schulers a preliminary injunction stopping the construction. After the court’s order, the Adamses filed a third-party complaint against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which had granted a permit that authorized the clearing of over 12,000 square feet of wetlands and the construction of the larger home.The Corps removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1), the federal-officer removal statute. The Sixth Circuit dismissed the Adamses’ appeal from the state court injunction for lack of appellate jurisdiction, stating that it has jurisdiction only over injunction orders “of” district courts, not state courts. The court noted that a district court may, after removal, modify or dissolve a state court’s injunction if the injunction conflicts with federal standards; the district court’s action would be reviewable. View "Schuler v. Adams" on Justia Law

Albright was severely injured in a car accident and used opioids to manage her chronic pain. She became addicted to opioids. Seeking treatment for her addiction, Albright turned to Dr. Christensen to administer a one-week in-patient detoxification program. Christensen started Albright with a patient-controlled analgesia pump to supply her with hydromorphone, a pain reliever; he also gave Albright phenobarbital, which depresses the central nervous system. Christensen terminated these treatments after Albright became “anxious and tearful” while the two discussed the treatment. Changing tack, Christensen twice administered Suboxone—an opioid-replacement medication—to Albright. On both occasions, Albright immediately developed muscle spasms, pain, contortions, restlessness, and feelings of temporary paralysis. She refused further treatment and was discharged. Albright still suffers shaking, muscle spasms, and emotional distress.The Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal of Albright’s suit against Christensen. The suit sounds in medical malpractice rather than negligence. Michigan’s affidavit-of-merit and pre-suit-notice rules for medical-malpractice actions conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and do not apply in diversity cases in federal court. Federal Rule 3 requires only the filing of a complaint to commence an action—nothing more. The district court mistakenly invoked Erie and applied the pre-suit-notice rule in Albright’s case. View "Albright v. Christensen" on Justia Law

Tomei went to Parkwest Hospital after he injured his foot and leg. He is deaf and communicates using American Sign Language. He asked for an interpreter. Parkwest never provided one. Medical staff gave him an antibiotic and ibuprofen and sent him home. Days later he went to the emergency room, where doctors determined he had blood clots in his leg. Parkwest offered only to connect Tomei with an off-site interpreter via webcam. The connection was so glitchy that Tomei could not effectively communicate. After surgery, Tomei could not tell the medical staff that he was still experiencing pain. Tomei was sent home. Tomei’s family doctor sent him to the University of Tennessee Medical Center, where interpreters helped him through a second surgery. Ultimately, doctors amputated nearly one-third of his leg. About 15 months after he was first denied an interpreter, Tomei sued under section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).The Sixth Circuit rejected an argument that the suit was untimely under Tennessee’s one-year statute of limitations for personal injury suits. Unless federal law provides otherwise, a civil action “arising under” a federal statute enacted after December 1, 1990, is subject to a four-year statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. 1658(a). Tomei brought his discrimination claim under the ACA—not the Rehabilitation Act. No statute or regulation explicitly sets a statute of limitations for violating the ACA’s discrimination bar. View "Tomei v. Parkwest Medical Center" on Justia Law

El-Khalil, a podiatrist, joined the Oakwood Taylor medical staff in 2008. During his time there, El-Khalil alleges that he saw Oakwood employees submit fraudulent Medicare claims, which he reported to the federal government. In 2015, Oakwood Taylor’s Medical Executive Committee (MEC) rejected El-Khalil’s application to renew his staff privileges. El-Khalil alleges that the MEC did so in retaliation for his whistleblowing. Pursuant to Oakwood’s Medical Staff Bylaws, El-Khalil commenced a series of administrative appeals. On September 22, 2016, Oakwood’s Joint Conference Committee, which had the authority to issue a final, non-appealable decision, voted to affirm the denial of El-Khalil’s staff privileges. On September 27, the Committee sent El-Khalil written notice of its decision.On September 27, 2019, El-Khalil sued Oakwood for violating the whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3730(h). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit as untimely under a three-year limitations period, which commenced when Oakwood decided not to renew El-Khalil’s medical-staff privileges, rather than when it notified El-Khalil of that decision five days later. Section 3730(h) contains no notice requirement. As soon as Oakwood “discriminated against” El-Khalil “because of” his FCA-protected conduct, he had a ripe “cause of action triggering the limitations period,” View "El-Khalil v. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc." on Justia Law

Polselli underpaid his federal taxes. The IRS has made formal assessments against him; the outstanding balance is over $2 million. While investigating assets to satisfy those liabilities, IRS Officer Bryant learned that Remo used entities to shield assets and that Remo “may have access to and use of” bank accounts held in the name of his wife, Hanna. Bryant served a summons on a bank, seeking account and financial records of Hanna “concerning” Remo. Remo was a client of the law firm Abraham & Rose; Bryant served the firm with a summons. The firm asserted attorney-client privilege and represented that it did not retain any of the requested documents. Bryant then issued identical summonses against banks, seeking any financial records of Abraham & Rose and a related law firm, “concerning” Remo. Bryant did not notify Hanna or the law firms of the bank summonses.After receiving notices from their banks, Hanna and the law firms petitioned to quash the summonses, alleging that the IRS failed properly to notify them under 26 U.S.C. 7609(a). The district court and Sixth Circuit agreed with the IRS that 7609(b)(2) and (h) waived sovereign immunity only for parties entitled to notice of the summonses and because the IRS was seeking the bank records “in aid of the collection” of Remo’s assessed liability, there was no entitlement to notice under 7609(c)(2)(D)(i). The district court, therefore, lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Polselli v. United States Department of the Treasury" on Justia Law

Simpson's insurer, the Fund, paid Simpson’s medical costs ($16,225) arising from a car accident. Simpson hired the Firm to represent her in a personal injury suit. The Fund maintained a right of subrogation and reimbursement. Simpson settled her suit for $30,000. After depositing the settlement funds in a trust account, the Firm paid $9,817.33 to Simpson, $1,000.82 to other lienholders, and $10,152.67 to its own operating account for fees and expenses, offering the Fund $9,029.18. The Fund sued under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) section 502(a)(3), claiming an equitable lien of $16,225. The Firm issued a $9,029.18 check to the Fund, exhausting the settlement funds.The district court issued a TRO requiring the Firm to maintain $7,497.99 in its operating account. The Firm argued that the Fund sought a legal remedy because the Firm no longer possessed the settlement funds; ERISA 502(a)(3) only authorizes equitable remedies. The Fund argued that it sought an equitable remedy because the settlement funds were in the Firm’s possession pursuant to the TRO and cited the lowest intermediate balance test: a defendant fully dissipates a plaintiff’s claimed funds (by spending money from the commingled account to purchase untraceable items) only if the balance in the commingled account dipped to $0 between the date the defendant commingled the funds and the date the plaintiff asserted its right to the funds. The district court granted the Firm summary judgment, reasoning that the Firm dissipated the settlement funds before the TRO issued; the Fund could not point to specific recoverable funds held by the Firm and sought a legal remedy. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding that no issues had been preserved for review. View "Sheet Metal Workers' Health & Welfare Fund of North Carolina v. Law Office of Michael A. DeMayo, LLP" on Justia Law

McCall, who pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge involving heroin possession and distribution in 2015 and was sentenced to 235 months’ imprisonment, moved for compassionate release. He cited as“extraordinary and compelling circumstances” warranting his release: the COVID-19 pandemic, his rehabilitation efforts, and the Sixth Circuit’s 2019 decision, “Havis” that “attempted” controlled substance offenses do not qualify as predicate offenses for the purpose of the Sentencing Guidelines’ career-offender enhancement and a subsequent holding applying the decision to convictions for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. He argued that his prior convictions for drug trafficking and assault no longer qualify as predicate offenses for career-offender status, that he has rehabilitated himself, and that the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors favored granting compassionate release. The government argued that McCall raised “generalized fears of contracting COVID-19, without more,” that post-sentence legal developments are not extraordinary, and that McCall poses a danger to the community.The district court denied McCall’s motion in a form order. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The district court suggested that it thought itself unable to rely on nonretroactive changes in sentencing law and abused its discretion by not considering the disparity in McCall’s sentence post-Havis along with his efforts at rehabilitation and the presence of COVID-19. View "United States v. McCall" on Justia Law

Beginning in 1986, Arabian was the sole authorized dealer for Ford brands in Kuwait. In a 2005 Agreement, the companies agreed to use “binding arbitration” as the “exclusive recourse” for any dispute. Ford ended the Agreement in 2016 and applied to the American Arbitration Association for a declaration that it permissibly ended the Agreement. Arabian sued, seeking an injunction prohibiting Ford from proceeding with arbitration and asserting breach of contract and fraud. Arabian argued that the Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act, 15 U.S.C. 1226, requires that arbitration between dealers and car manufacturers requires that the parties consent to it after the dispute arises. The district court denied the motion, deciding that the arbitrator must resolve the gateway issue.The arbitral tribunal decided that the Act did not deprive it of authority and held that Ford permissibly terminated the Agreement; it taxed Arabian $1.35 million for fees and costs. Arabian brought counterclaims for breach of contract and fraud but withdrew them before the award. The Sixth Circuit confirmed the award. On remand, Ford moved to stay the federal action to allow the arbitrator to resolve Arabian’s common law claims. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The Act’s command, 9 U.S.C. 3, that a district court “shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial,” conveys a mandatory obligation. Dismissal, unlike a stay, permits an objecting party to file an immediate appeal; a dismissal order undercuts the Act's pro-arbitration appellate-review provisions. View "Arabian Motors Group W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Co." on Justia Law

Eight named plaintiffs, including two minors, brought a nationwide putative class action against e-commerce provider StockX for allegedly failing to protect millions of StockX users’ personal account information obtained through a cyber-attack in May 2019. Since 2015, StockX’s terms of service included an arbitration agreement, a delegation provision, a class action waiver, and instructions for how to opt-out of the arbitration agreement. Since 2017, StockX's website has stated: StockX may change these Terms without notice to you. “YOUR CONTINUED USE OF THE SITE AFTER WE CHANGE THESE TERMS CONSTITUTES YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHANGES. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ANY CHANGES, YOU MUST CANCEL YOUR ACCOUNT.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit and an order compelling arbitration. The court rejected arguments that there is an issue of fact as to whether four of the plaintiffs agreed to the current terms of service and that the defenses of infancy and unconscionability render the terms of service and the arbitration agreement (including the delegation provision) invalid and unenforceable. The arbitrator must decide in the first instance whether the defenses of infancy and unconscionability allow plaintiffs to avoid arbitrating the merits of their claims. View "I. C. v. StockX, LLC" on Justia Law

In 1955-1976, WPC, a manufacturer of industrial valves, bought primary and excess level liability insurance policies from OneBeacon’s predecessor. In 2001, asbestos lawsuits started coming against WPC. OneBeacon began its defense. The parties reached an impasse over several issues.WPC sought declaratory relief in Ohio state court concerning OneBeacon’s obligations. WPC also sued OneBeacon in federal court, alleging breach of contract. OneBeacon unsuccessfully moved to dismiss or stay the case. The district court rejected OneBeacon’s argument that the federal and state proceedings were parallel. WPC amended its state complaint, adding breach of contract claims. The state court held that OneBeacon had not committed the alleged breaches. OneBeacon again moved to dismiss WPC’s federal lawsuit, arguing that the state court’s ruling precluded WPC’s federal claims. The court acknowledged that the state court judgment likely satisfied the elements of claim preclusion, but declined to dismiss. The court stayed the case, noting that WPC’s amended state court complaint made the state and federal proceedings parallel. After OneBeacon filed its federal notice of appeal, the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed in part, finding that OneBeacon breached some of the policies. Pennsylvania subsequently liquidated OneBeacon and stayed all litigation.The Sixth Circuit reversed, first holding that exercising appellate jurisdiction here will in no way “hinder [the] operation” of Pennsylvania’s claims process and priority scheme. Claim preclusion bars the federal suit. View "William Powell Co. v. National Indemnity Co." on Justia Law