Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The plaintiffs, City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System and David Freundlich, filed a consolidated securities action against CVS Health Corporation. They alleged that CVS's offering documents related to its 2018 merger with Aetna contained false statements and omissions, violating sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The plaintiffs claimed that CVS overstated the value of its goodwill and failed to disclose significant issues with its Long Term Care (LTC) business, which it acquired through Omnicare, Inc. in 2015.The Superior Court of Rhode Island dismissed the plaintiffs' Revised Amended Consolidated Complaint (RACC), finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Securities Act. The court also noted that similar claims had been dismissed in related cases in New York and the First Circuit. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, arguing that the Superior Court improperly applied collateral estoppel and failed to consider the merits of their claims.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs waived their right to challenge the merits of the dismissal by not adequately addressing it in their initial brief. The court also found that the Superior Court's decision to dismiss the case was supported by principles of judicial economy and comity, given the similar rulings in related cases. The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiffs' appeal was without merit and upheld the lower court's judgment. View "In re CVS Health Corporation Securities Litigation" on Justia Law

F.B. and M.B. filed a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and their minor child, L.B., under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging that Our Lady of Lourdes Parish and School failed to comply with procedural standards and requirements mandated by the Act's implementing regulations. L.B. had ADHD and reduced vision, and her parents claimed that the school initially provided necessary accommodations but later failed to do so after a change in school administration. This led to L.B. receiving failing grades and eventually being expelled from the school.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the case, holding that Section 504 does not create a private right of action for claims based solely on an alleged failure to comply with procedural standards and requirements of the implementing regulations. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to bring their claims. The court found that the plaintiffs' alleged injury, L.B.'s expulsion, was not fairly traceable to the school's failure to comply with the procedural regulations of Section 504. Additionally, the court determined that the relief sought by the plaintiffs would not redress their alleged injury. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "F.B. v. Our Lady of Lourdes Parish and School" on Justia Law

Charles James, a home designer, claimed that real estate agents infringed his copyrights by including floorplans of his homes in resale listings. James designed a home with a triangular atrium and stairs, built six homes using the design, and registered copyrights for the designs. In 2010, agent Susan Horak listed one of these homes for resale, creating a floorplan by hand for the listing. In 2017, agent Jackie Bulgin listed another of James's homes, using a similar floorplan. James discovered these listings in 2017 and alleged that the floorplans could be used to build homes, potentially infringing his copyrights.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment to the real estate agents, concluding that their use of the floorplans was fair use. The court also initially ruled in favor of the agents under § 120(a) of the Copyright Act, but this decision was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which remanded the case for further consideration of the fair use defense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the agents. The court held that the agents' use of the floorplans was fair use, considering the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect on the market for the original work. The court found that the agents' use was transformative, had an informational purpose, and did not harm the market for James's designs. The court also rejected Designworks's request for further discovery on the fair use issue, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. The court affirmed the district court's judgments. View "Designworks Homes, Inc. v. Columbia House of Brokers Realty, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) grant of an abandonment incentive to ITC Midwest, LLC (ITC). This incentive allows ITC to recover 100% of its prudently incurred costs if a planned transmission project is abandoned for reasons beyond its control. Petitioners, a group of organizations whose members purchase electricity, argued that ITC's ownership of the project was uncertain due to ongoing litigation challenging the Iowa Right of First Refusal statute.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved ITC's request for the abandonment incentive, finding that the project met the necessary criteria, including enhancing reliability and reducing congestion. Petitioners filed a protest, which FERC rejected, stating that regulatory or litigation uncertainty does not preclude granting an abandonment incentive. Petitioners then sought rehearing, which FERC also denied, reiterating that the approval was consistent with its precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that petitioners lacked Article III standing because they failed to show imminent injury from FERC's orders. The court noted that petitioners' claims of potential future higher rates were speculative and not concrete or imminent. The court also found that petitioners' interest in the proper application of the law and potential collateral estoppel effects did not constitute a cognizable injury. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. View "Industrial Energy Consumers of America v. FERC" on Justia Law

Mark Nelson, operating North Country Weatherization Technologies, provided ice removal services to Pine View First Addition Association, a Minnesota non-profit homeowners' association, in spring 2023. Pine View's property manager, a North Dakota LLC, contacted Nelson for urgent ice removal due to water damage. Nelson completed the work and invoiced Pine View, but payment was delayed, allegedly due to Pine View's attempt to have insurance cover the costs. Nelson filed a lawsuit in North Dakota for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, seeking $79,695 plus interest and attorney’s fees.The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, granted Pine View's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that North Dakota did not have jurisdiction over Pine View, as it is a Minnesota entity and the services were performed in Minnesota. The court also denied Pine View's motion for Rule 11 sanctions against Nelson and his attorney, as well as Nelson's request for prevailing party attorney’s fees.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that North Dakota has specific personal jurisdiction over Pine View because Pine View, through its North Dakota-based property manager, initiated contact with Nelson for the ice removal services. The court found that Pine View's contacts with North Dakota were sufficient to satisfy the state's long-arm provision and due process requirements. The Supreme Court also determined that the district court abused its discretion in denying Nelson's request for prevailing party attorney’s fees under Rule 11(c)(2), as Pine View's motion for sanctions against Nelson violated Rule 11(c)(5)(A). The case was remanded for further proceedings and to determine the amount of attorney’s fees Nelson is owed. View "Nelson v. Pine View First Addition Association" on Justia Law

Jacob Hollingsworth filed for divorce from Katie Hollingsworth after nearly five years of marriage. They had one child and stipulated to a parenting plan, leaving the division of marital property, spousal support, and attorney’s fees as the issues for trial. Katie entered the marriage with significant debt and a house, while Jacob had a house, personal assets, and business interests. They kept separate finances except for a joint account for shared expenses. Jacob paid off much of Katie’s debt during the marriage.The District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, heard testimony from both parties, two valuation experts, and Jacob’s father. The court awarded Jacob 92% and Katie 8% of the marital assets, denied Katie’s requests for spousal support and attorney’s fees, and allowed Jacob’s valuation expert to testify despite a late report disclosure. Katie appealed the decisions.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It upheld the district court’s decision to allow the expert testimony, noting that the court offered a continuance, which Katie declined. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s handling of the late disclosure.The Supreme Court also affirmed the district court’s valuation and division of the marital estate, finding the valuations were within the range of evidence presented and the unequal distribution was justified by the parties’ financial contributions and spending habits. The court upheld the use of the agreed valuation date for assets and found no error in including interim order funds in the marital estate.The court found no clear error in denying spousal support, as both parties were capable of self-support. It also upheld the denial of attorney’s fees, noting Katie’s sufficient income and excessive spending habits. The district court’s judgment was affirmed in all respects. View "Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth" on Justia Law

Michael Gifford, a beneficiary of the Operating Engineers 139 Health Benefit Fund, sought reimbursement for out-of-network medical expenses incurred during his treatment for a stroke and subsequent brain aneurysm surgery. The Fund denied the claim, stating the services were not provided in an emergency and were not medically necessary. Gifford's wife, Suzanne, appealed the decision, but the Fund upheld the denial after consulting two independent medical reviewers who concluded the surgery was not an emergency and not medically necessary.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the Fund's motion for summary judgment, agreeing that the Fund's decision was not arbitrary and capricious. The court also granted the Fund's motion for a protective order, limiting discovery to the administrative record. The Estate of Michael Gifford, represented by Suzanne, appealed the decision, arguing that the Fund failed to conduct a full and fair review by not considering a surgical note from Dr. Ahuja, which was not included in the administrative record.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the Fund's denial of benefits was not arbitrary and capricious, as the Fund reasonably relied on the independent medical reviewers' reports and the administrative record. The court also found that the Fund was not required to seek out additional information not provided by the claimant. Additionally, the court upheld the district court's grant of the protective order, finding no abuse of discretion in limiting discovery to the administrative record. The court concluded that the Fund provided a full and fair review of the claim, and the denial of benefits was reasonable. View "Estate of Gifford v Operating Engineers 139 Health Benefit Fund" on Justia Law

Alice Guan and her homeowners association (HOA), Ellingsworth Residential Community Association, Inc., were involved in a dispute after Guan failed to conform her yard to the HOA’s covenants. Ellingsworth sued Guan in state court, and Guan countersued for various state-law claims. The state court awarded Guan costs and fees, but before she could collect, Ellingsworth filed for subchapter V bankruptcy.In the Bankruptcy Court, Guan filed several motions, including objections to Ellingsworth’s subchapter V eligibility and reorganization plan, and a motion for relief from the automatic stay. The Bankruptcy Court overruled Guan’s objections, confirming Ellingsworth’s subchapter V status and reorganization plan, and denied her motion for relief from the stay. Guan appealed these decisions to the District Court.The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s orders, finding that Ellingsworth was eligible for subchapter V as it was engaged in business activities, and that the reorganization plan was fair and equitable. The court also upheld the denial of Guan’s motion for relief from the stay, concluding that the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion and had jurisdiction over Guan’s claims.Guan also appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of her motion to abstain from ruling on state law issues. The District Court dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating that the abstention order was not a final appealable order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decisions on subchapter V eligibility, the reorganization plan, and the denial of stay relief. However, it vacated the dismissal of Guan’s abstention appeal, remanding it to the District Court for further consideration, as the denial of mandatory abstention is immediately appealable. View "Guan v. Ellingsworth Residential Community Association, Inc." on Justia Law

Robert Gallagher borrowed money from Santander Consumer USA to purchase a car. After making the final payment via electronic funds transfer, Santander, following its standard practice, waited 15 days before sending the car title. Missouri law requires lienholders to release their lien within five business days after receiving full payment, including electronic funds transfers, or pay liquidated damages. Gallagher filed a lawsuit in Missouri state court on behalf of a potential class of borrowers affected by Santander's 15-day policy.The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which granted summary judgment in favor of Santander. Gallagher appealed the decision, seeking to reverse the summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court focused on whether Gallagher had standing to bring the case in federal court, specifically whether he had suffered an injury-in-fact. The court determined that Gallagher had not identified a concrete harm resulting from the delay in receiving the car title. The court noted that a statutory violation alone is insufficient for standing; there must be a concrete harm related to the violation. Gallagher did not demonstrate any monetary harm, such as a failed sale or impaired credit rating, nor did he show any ongoing injury to his property rights.The Eighth Circuit concluded that Gallagher lacked standing because he did not suffer a concrete injury. As a result, the court vacated the district court's judgment and instructed the district court to remand the case to state court. View "Gallagher v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc." on Justia Law

While incarcerated at Woodborne Correctional Facility, Antonio Mallet sought medical care for urinary obstruction and painful urination, symptoms indicative of prostate cancer. Despite a cystoscopy revealing concerning results, prison doctors did not conduct further tests for prostate cancer, instead prescribing medication for a benign enlarged prostate. Mallet was released on parole in January 2019 and was diagnosed with late-stage prostate cancer in May 2021. He filed a lawsuit on February 25, 2022, against the State of New York, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), its acting commissioner, and three medical providers, alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs and other constitutional violations, as well as state law claims for malpractice and negligence.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Mallet’s constitutional claims as untimely, reasoning that the claims accrued by the time he was released from custody in January 2019, thus falling outside the three-year statute of limitations for Section 1983 claims in New York. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found it plausible that Mallet’s deliberate indifference claim had not accrued by February 25, 2019, making his complaint potentially timely. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the deliberate indifference claims against Dr. Makram and Dr. Stellato, finding them plausible, but affirmed the dismissal of the claim against Professor Ritaccio and the constitutional claims against New York State, DOCCS, and Annucci due to sovereign immunity. The court vacated the dismissal of the remaining constitutional claims and state law claims, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Mallet v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision" on Justia Law