Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Jeffrey Herrera filed a pro se complaint alleging that he was detained for several months beyond his maximum release date, which he claimed violated the Eighth Amendment. Herrera was arrested in September 2012, sentenced in March 2013 to 36 to 72 months’ imprisonment, and released on parole in December 2014. After violating parole, his sentence was reduced in January 2017 to 30 to 66 months, with credit for time served. Despite this, Herrera claimed he was detained until October 2019, seven months past his maximum release date of March 2019.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed Herrera’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), reasoning that his claim must be brought as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and that his claim for damages was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The court also found that any amendment to the complaint would be futile. Herrera’s motions for reconsideration and relief from judgment were denied, with the court maintaining that his claim was barred by Heck and the statute of limitations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and determined that Heck does not apply to Herrera’s overdetention claim because it does not imply that his conviction or sentence were invalid. The court found that Herrera plausibly pleaded an Eighth Amendment overdetention claim, as he alleged that prison officials were aware of his overdetention and failed to act, resulting in his prolonged detention. However, the court noted that the claim might be time-barred under Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations but remanded the case to allow Herrera to amend his complaint to address potential tolling of the statute of limitations. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Herrera v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole" on Justia Law

Elizabeth Perez, a former employee of Rose Hills Company, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees, alleging violations of California wage-and-hour laws. The complaint did not specify the amount in controversy or the frequency of the alleged violations. Rose Hills removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), which allows removal if the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.The United States District Court for the Central District of California remanded the case to state court, stating that Rose Hills did not meet CAFA’s $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement. The district court found that Rose Hills failed to provide evidence justifying its assumed violation rate, which was used to calculate the amount in controversy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that a removing defendant under CAFA is permitted to rely on reasonable assumptions based on the plaintiff’s complaint to calculate the amount in controversy. The court found that Rose Hills’ approach, which included assumptions about the violation rate tethered to the language of the complaint, was reasonable. The district court erred by requiring Rose Hills to provide evidence supporting its assumed violation rate.The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s remand order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to evaluate whether Rose Hills’ violation-rate assumption was a reasonable interpretation of the complaint. The court emphasized that assumptions need not be proven with evidence if they are reasonable interpretations of the complaint’s allegations. View "Perez v. Rose Hills Company" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Alexandria Kazarian, filed a negligence lawsuit against New London County Mutual Insurance Company after a trip-and-fall accident near property owned by the defendant’s insured, Irene Swiney. Kazarian alleged that Swiney allowed a vehicle to be parked in a manner that obstructed the sidewalk, causing her to walk into the street and trip over an unsecured gas cap, resulting in injury. After Swiney passed away, New London was substituted as the defendant.In the Superior Court, a jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of New London. Kazarian’s motion for a new trial was denied. She argued that Swiney was negligent for allowing the vehicle to obstruct the sidewalk and that a master-servant relationship existed between Swiney and the vehicle owner, making Swiney liable. The trial justice denied the motion, stating it was within the jury’s purview to evaluate the evidence and witness credibility.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case. Kazarian contended that the trial justice erred in denying her motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial. She also argued that the trial justice’s use of the word “redacted” in response to a jury question was prejudicial. The Supreme Court found that reasonable minds could differ on whether the vehicle obstructed the sidewalk and whether it was a reasonable and necessary use of the sidewalk. The Court also noted that Kazarian failed to object contemporaneously to the alleged golden rule violation and the grass-growth argument during the trial, thus waiving those issues.The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, concluding that the trial justice conducted an appropriate analysis and did not err in his decisions. The case was remanded to the Superior Court. View "Kazarian v. New London County Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed a petition in September 2022 for temporary orders requiring the parents to participate in state-provided services for their child's safety. The trial court granted these temporary orders. In August 2023, the Department filed a petition to terminate the parents' rights and obtain conservatorship of the child. The parents responded with motions for sanctions, claiming the Department's actions were frivolous. The Department then moved to nonsuit its claims. The trial court expressed frustration but granted the nonsuit and planned a separate hearing for the sanctions motions.The trial court signed an order on August 21, 2023, dismissing the Department's claims and removing the case from the docket. However, the court later consolidated the cases and held a hearing on the sanctions motions, ultimately granting them and ordering the Department to pay the parents' attorney's fees. The Department appealed the sanctions order. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas vacated the sanctions order, deeming it void because the trial court's dismissal order was considered final, thus ending the court's plenary power before the sanctions order was issued.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and disagreed with the appellate court's conclusion. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's dismissal order was not a final judgment as it did not clearly and unequivocally dispose of all claims and parties. Therefore, the trial court retained its plenary power when it issued the sanctions order. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's judgment vacating the sanctions order, dismissed the appeal, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "In re C.K.M." on Justia Law

Two business partners, Anthony Bertucci and Eugene Watkins, developed low-income housing projects through various entities. Bertucci provided funding, while Watkins managed the projects. Watkins managed the entities' funds through a separate account, which led to concerns about mismanagement and personal use of funds. After Bertucci's health declined, his son Christopher, acting under power of attorney, discovered potential mismanagement and removed Watkins from his roles. This led to a legal dispute involving claims of breach of fiduciary duty and other violations.The probate court granted summary judgment in favor of Watkins on all claims. Bertucci, represented by his son Christopher as executor of his estate, appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas reversed the summary judgment on some claims, finding fact issues regarding fiduciary duties and limitations, but affirmed the judgment on the derivative claims, concluding that Bertucci failed to adequately brief those claims.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Bertucci waived his appeal on the derivative claims due to inadequate briefing. The Supreme Court also found that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that fact issues precluded summary judgment on Bertucci's individual breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims. However, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that fact issues precluded summary judgment on Watkins's limitations defense and correctly resolved disputes regarding an expert report and the Dead Man's Rule. The Supreme Court reinstated the probate court's summary judgment on the individual breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to address the derivative claims. View "Bertucci v. Watkins" on Justia Law

In the 1950s, Bert and Donna Miller sought fertility treatment at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. Dr. John H. Randall, the head of the department, assisted them, resulting in the birth of three children. Decades later, DNA testing revealed that Dr. Randall, not Bert Miller, was the biological father of two of the children. The plaintiffs, Bert Miller and Nancy Duffner, sued the State of Iowa under the Fraud in Assisted Reproduction Act (FARA), alleging that Dr. Randall used his own sperm without their parents' knowledge or consent.The Iowa District Court for Johnson County dismissed the case, ruling that FARA, enacted in 2022, does not apply retroactively to actions taken decades earlier. The court found that FARA lacks any express language indicating legislative intent for retrospective application, and thus, it operates only prospectively. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that FARA's provision allowing children to sue "at any time" implies retroactive application.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that FARA does not apply to fertility fraud committed before the statute was enacted. The court emphasized that without an express retroactivity provision, statutes creating new substantive liabilities are presumed to operate only prospectively. The court found no language in FARA that rebuts this presumption and concluded that the statute's provision allowing actions to be brought "at any time" pertains only to future violations. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice. View "Miller v. State" on Justia Law

Antoine Smith, a police officer for the City of Cedar Rapids, was ordered to retake his official photo, which he refused. This led to a formal administrative investigation by the Cedar Rapids Police Department. Smith was notified of the investigation and later interviewed, during which he admitted to violating the department's code of conduct. The investigation concluded with a recommendation for a ten-hour suspension without pay and a requirement for Smith to retake his photo. Smith's counsel requested the investigation results and materials, which were denied until after the disciplinary decision was made.The Iowa District Court for Linn County granted summary judgment in favor of the City, concluding that the City did not violate Iowa Code section 80F.1(3) or 80F.1(9) by withholding the investigative materials until after the disciplinary decision. Smith appealed this decision.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that under Iowa Code section 80F.1(3), an officer is entitled to the results of an investigation only after the agency has made a final determination, including whether discipline will be imposed. Similarly, under section 80F.1(9), the officer is entitled to investigative materials only after discipline is decided. The court concluded that the City did not violate these provisions by waiting until after the disciplinary decision to provide the requested materials. The court emphasized that the statutory language clearly conditions the rights to these materials on the imposition of discipline. View "Smith v. City of Cedar Rapids" on Justia Law

Woodsonia Hwy 281, LLC (Woodsonia) owned a retail shopping mall in Grand Island, Nebraska, and leased space to American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (AMC). Woodsonia planned to redevelop the mall and sought to terminate AMC's lease under the eminent domain provisions of the lease agreement. Woodsonia claimed that the lease was terminated after conveying AMC's leasehold interest to the Community Redevelopment Authority (CRA) under threat of condemnation. AMC disputed the termination, arguing that the conditions for termination under the lease were not met.The County Court for Hall County overruled AMC's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the lease was terminated under the eminent domain provisions and granted Woodsonia restitution of the premises. AMC appealed to the District Court for Hall County, which affirmed the County Court's decision, reasoning that the lease provisions allowed Woodsonia to transfer AMC's leasehold interest under threat of condemnation.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the forcible entry and detainer action presented a title dispute, as the court needed to resolve whether AMC's leasehold interest was validly terminated. The court held that such a title dispute could not be determined in a forcible entry and detainer action, which is limited to determining the immediate right of possession without addressing title issues. Consequently, the County Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and should have dismissed the action.The Nebraska Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case with directions to vacate the County Court's judgment and dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. View "Woodsonia Hwy 281 v. American Multi-Cinema" on Justia Law

Alex Lancaster, who operates an adult foster care program in his home, received a correction order from Olmsted County on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) after a home inspection. The correction order cited two violations: failure to provide resident access to the upstairs living room and dining area. Lancaster did not request reconsideration of the correction order within the 20-day deadline.Lancaster appealed the correction order to the Minnesota Court of Appeals by petitioning for a writ of certiorari. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal, determining that the correction order was not a quasi-judicial decision and therefore not appealable by writ of certiorari. Lancaster then petitioned for further review.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether a DHS correction order is appealable by writ of certiorari. The court held that a correction order is not a judicial or quasi-judicial decision because it does not bind and irrevocably fix the legal rights of the license holder. Instead, it merely notifies the license holder of alleged violations and the possibility of future sanctions if the violations are not corrected. As a result, the correction order does not meet the criteria for a quasi-judicial decision, which includes a binding decision regarding a disputed claim.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' dismissal of Lancaster’s appeal, concluding that the correction order was not appealable by writ of certiorari. View "Lancaster vs. Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

Bradley Dobbs filed a complaint against Dollar General Corporation on November 21, 2022, alleging that on November 13, 2020, he was falsely accused of shoplifting by the store manager, Devan Callahan, in front of other customers and his granddaughter. Dobbs claimed that this false accusation caused him embarrassment, humiliation, and emotional distress, leading to medical treatment for anxiety, stress, and depression. He sought $74,000 in damages for the wrongful, negligent, and malicious infliction of emotional and mental distress by Dollar General's employee.The Pike County County Court initially granted Dollar General's motion to dismiss due to Dobbs's failure to timely respond. However, the court set aside this judgment after Dobbs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and for an extension of time to respond. After a hearing, the trial court found that the three-year statute of limitations for negligence applied and denied Dollar General's motion to dismiss. Dollar General then petitioned for an interlocutory appeal, which was granted, along with a motion to stay the trial court proceedings.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and determined that Dobbs's claim was essentially one of defamation, specifically slander, rather than negligence. The court held that the one-year statute of limitations for defamation applied, as the substance of Dobbs's claim was that Dollar General falsely accused him of shoplifting in the presence of others. Since Dobbs filed his complaint more than one year after the incident, the court found the claim to be time-barred. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the trial court's order and rendered judgment in favor of Dollar General, dismissing Dobbs's complaint. View "Dollar General Corporation v. Dobbs" on Justia Law