Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, a group of hospice service providers in Oklahoma, sued Defendant Axxess Technology Solutions, Inc. for breach of contract, alleging that Axxess failed to properly process claims, resulting in non-payment for services. Axxess was served but mistakenly believed it had not been due to an employee error. Consequently, Axxess did not respond to the complaint, leading the district court to enter a default judgment against it. Axxess moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to a contractual mediation requirement. The district court denied this motion, and Axxess did not appeal.Over six months later, Axxess filed a second motion to set aside the default judgment, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (4), and (6). The district court denied this motion on claim preclusion grounds, and Axxess timely appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision but not on claim preclusion grounds. Instead, it held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the second motion because the arguments raised could have been presented in the first motion. The court noted that Axxess's delay in raising these arguments was sufficient reason to deny relief under Rule 60(b). The court also granted Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to properly allege diversity jurisdiction, concluding that there was complete diversity between the parties. View "Choice Hospice v. Axxess Technology Solutions" on Justia Law

Wayne Brown, a Tulsa police officer, was terminated after a private citizen, Marq Lewis, brought several of Brown's old Facebook posts to the attention of the City of Tulsa and the Tulsa Police Department. The posts included images and messages that were deemed offensive and in violation of the department's social media policy. Brown filed a lawsuit claiming his termination violated his First Amendment rights and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He also brought a wrongful discharge claim under Oklahoma law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma dismissed Brown's federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim. The court concluded that the City's interest in maintaining public confidence in the police force outweighed Brown's free speech rights and that Chief Jordan was entitled to qualified immunity. The court also dismissed Brown's Equal Protection claim, determining it was a "class-of-one" theory foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the dismissal of Brown's First Amendment claim, finding that the district court erred in conducting the Pickering balancing test at the motion to dismiss stage and in granting qualified immunity to Chief Jordan. The court affirmed the dismissal of Brown's Equal Protection claim, agreeing that it was a non-cognizable "class-of-one" claim in the public employment context. The court also reversed the district court's decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Brown's state law claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "Brown v. City of Tulsa" on Justia Law

Universitas Education, LLC sought to recover funds lost in an insurance fraud scheme orchestrated by Daniel Carpenter, which defrauded Universitas of $30 million in life insurance proceeds. The fraud involved multiple corporate entities, including Avon Capital, LLC, and its affiliates. Universitas secured a civil judgment in the Southern District of New York for $30.6 million, including $6.7 million against Avon Capital, LLC. Universitas registered the judgment in Oklahoma and sought to garnish a $6.7 million insurance portfolio held by SDM Holdings, which Avon owned.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment in favor of Universitas and authorized a receivership over Avon and SDM. Avon and SDM appealed, arguing procedural defects and disputes on the merits. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the summary judgment on mootness grounds, determining that the district court could not rely on the registered judgment because its five-year effective term had expired before the district court entered its order. The case was remanded for further proceedings.Upon remand, Universitas re-registered the New York judgment, and the district court re-entered summary judgment in favor of Universitas and reauthorized the receivership over Avon and SDM. Avon and SDM challenged the district court's jurisdiction and the re-entered orders. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the district court retained jurisdiction to preserve the status quo during the appeal and properly re-affirmed its summary judgment and receivership orders after receiving the appellate mandate. The court concluded that Universitas did not need to file a new cause of action and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings. View "Universitas Education v. Avon Capital" on Justia Law

Plaintiff John Doe filed a class action lawsuit against Integris Health, Inc., alleging that Integris collected confidential health information from its website visitors and unlawfully shared it with third parties like Google and Facebook. Doe's complaint, filed in Oklahoma state court, asserted state law claims including negligence, invasion of privacy, and breach of fiduciary duty. Integris removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, claiming it was acting under the direction of a federal officer by helping the federal government achieve its objective of ensuring patient access to electronic health records (EHR).The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma remanded the case to state court, concluding that Integris had not demonstrated it was "acting under" the direction of a federal officer. The court found that Integris was merely complying with federal regulations, which is insufficient to establish federal officer jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that Integris was not "acting under" a federal officer because it was only complying with federal regulations and not fulfilling a basic government task. The court emphasized that compliance with federal law, even if highly detailed and supervised, does not equate to acting under a federal officer. The court also noted that Integris's use of tracking technology on its website was not required by the federal government and was not part of any federal directive. Therefore, the court concluded that removal under the federal officer removal statute was improper. View "Doe v. Integris Health" on Justia Law

Deborah Bradshaw and Chrystal Antao sued American Airlines and Mesa Airlines, alleging injuries and damages from the airlines' negligent handling of an in-flight emergency. During a June 2020 flight, the aircraft experienced a malfunction that led to a loss of cabin pressure, requiring an emergency descent. The plaintiffs claimed the pilot failed to properly inform passengers of the threat and descended too rapidly, while American Airlines failed to provide medical personnel upon landing.The case was initially filed in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and later removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on diversity grounds. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the airlines, concluding that federal law preempted Oklahoma's common-carrier standard of care in aviation safety. The court allowed the plaintiffs to pursue a state negligence claim using the federal "reckless-or-careless manner" standard but found no evidence that the airlines violated this standard.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Federal Aviation Act and related regulations preempt state law in the field of aviation safety. The court agreed that the federal "careless or reckless manner" standard of care applies, preempting Oklahoma's common-carrier standard. The court found no genuine issue of material fact regarding a violation of federal regulations by the airlines and upheld the summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Bradshaw v. American Airlines" on Justia Law

Autumn Bertels was severely injured in a car accident involving her grandmother, Elizabeth Bertels, and another driver, Denver Barr, who both died in the crash. Autumn later filed a lawsuit against Elizabeth's estate, and they reached an agreement where the estate assigned its claims against Elizabeth's insurer, Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company, to Autumn. The agreement stipulated that Autumn would not seek to collect from the estate's assets and would cover the estate's litigation expenses. A judge awarded Autumn a $15.75 million judgment against the estate, and she subsequently sued Farm Bureau for breach of contract and bad faith.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed Autumn's suit against Farm Bureau, ruling that she lacked standing because the assignment from the estate was invalid. The court determined that Autumn provided no consideration for the assignment, as her promises were already required by the Kansas nonclaim statute, which bars claims against a deceased person's estate after a certain period and requires the claimant to pay the estate's litigation expenses.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the nonclaim statute barred Autumn's claim against the estate's assets and required her to pay the estate's expenses, rendering her promises in the agreement illusory and without consideration. Consequently, the assignment was invalid, and Autumn lacked standing to sue Farm Bureau. The court also rejected Autumn's arguments regarding tolling of the nonclaim statute due to her minority and other constitutional claims, finding them unpersuasive or procedurally barred. View "Bertels v. Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Newton Jones, the President of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, was removed from office and expelled from the Union by the Union’s Executive Council after it was determined that he had misused Union funds. Jones challenged the disciplinary proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, arguing that the proceedings violated the Union Constitution and his due-process rights under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). He also claimed that the district court erred by not allowing him sufficient time to respond to the motion for summary judgment and by not permitting discovery.The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Vice Presidents who had acted against Jones, affirming their decision to remove him from office. The court ruled that the Executive Council’s decision was binding and entitled to full effect. Jones then appealed the district court’s summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s summary judgment. The appellate court held that the Executive Council did not violate the Union Constitution in removing Jones from office. The court deferred to the Union’s interpretation of its constitutional provisions, concluding that the Council’s interpretations were not unreasonable. The court also found that Jones had not shown any violation of the LMRDA or any error by the district court in conducting the summary-judgment proceedings.The Tenth Circuit concluded that Jones received a full and fair hearing under the LMRDA and that the district court did not err in setting an expedited briefing schedule or in not allowing additional time for discovery. The court affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment. View "International Brotherhood of Boilermakers v. Jones" on Justia Law

Grace Smith, a high school junior, was repeatedly suspended from Laramie High School for refusing to comply with a COVID-19 indoor-mask mandate imposed by the Albany County School District No. 1 Board of Trustees. After her suspensions, she was arrested for trespassing on school grounds. Grace and her parents, Andy and Erin Smith, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming against the Board members, the superintendent, and the principal, alleging violations of Grace’s constitutional rights and state law claims.The district court dismissed the federal claims for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that Grace did not suffer an injury in fact necessary for standing. The court reasoned that her injuries were hypothetical because the mask mandate had expired and she was no longer a student at LHS, and that her injuries were self-inflicted. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Grace had standing to bring her claims because she suffered concrete and particularized injuries from the enforcement of the mask mandate, including suspensions and arrest. The court found that her injuries were directly inflicted by the defendants’ actions and were not self-inflicted. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. View "Smith v. Albany County School District No. 1" on Justia Law

In April 2023, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed a law raising the minimum age for purchasing firearms in Colorado from 18 to 21. The law was set to take effect on August 7, 2023. Plaintiffs, including two individuals and a firearms advocacy group, filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect. The district court granted the injunction on the day the law was to take effect, halting its enforcement. Governor Polis appealed the decision.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado initially found that the plaintiffs had standing, except for the advocacy group, and determined that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their Second Amendment challenge. The court concluded that the law was not consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation and that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction. Governor Polis appealed the district court's decision, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the law was consistent with historical firearm regulations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their Second Amendment claim. The court found that the law was a presumptively lawful regulation imposing conditions on the commercial sale of firearms, which did not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment's protections. The court also determined that the plaintiffs did not establish irreparable harm and that the balance of harms and public interest favored the enforcement of the law. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit remanded the case with instructions to dissolve the preliminary injunction. View "Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis" on Justia Law

The case involves an interlocutory appeal arising from a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement action against Michael Young and others, alleging a fraudulent investment scheme. The SEC claimed that the defendants raised over $125 million from investors by falsely representing the use of a profitable algorithmic trading strategy, misappropriating funds for personal gain, and misrepresenting the profitability of their trading scheme. The parties agreed to a preliminary injunction freezing the defendants' assets, with the defendants retaining the right to request relief from the freeze.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied the Youngs' motions to unfreeze assets on three occasions. In April 2020, the court denied their first motion. In November 2020, the court denied their second motion, and the Youngs appealed. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Youngs had forfeited their arguments by not raising them properly in the lower court. In March 2023, the Youngs filed a third motion to unfreeze assets, which the district court also denied, citing the law of the case doctrine and improper reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the appeal and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the March 2023 motion was a successive motion raising the same issues that could have been raised in the November 2020 motion. The court emphasized that there was no change in circumstances, evidence, or law since the prior motion that would warrant jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The court concluded that the Youngs failed to demonstrate a close nexus between any change and the issues raised on appeal, thus affirming the district court's denial of the motion to unfreeze assets. View "USSEC v. Mediatrix Capital" on Justia Law