Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A group of plaintiffs, including a medical practice, individual physicians, a medical society, and two patients, brought various claims against a health insurer, alleging that the insurer interfered with doctor-patient relationships, denied or delayed coverage for medical services, and caused significant harm to patients. The claims included tortious interference with contractual rights, unfair competition, RICO violations, and emotional distress, with specific factual allegations that the insurer’s actions led to worsened medical outcomes for the patients involved.The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit reviewed the insurer’s motion to compel arbitration based on arbitration clauses in provider agreements and member handbooks. Instead of determining whether the claims were subject to arbitration, the circuit court focused on the alleged unconscionability of the contracts as a whole, finding them to be contracts of adhesion and unconscionable, and denied the motion to compel arbitration. The court also denied summary judgment as to one patient’s claims and did not stay the medical society’s claims pending arbitration.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi reviewed the case and held that the circuit court erred by not following the required analytical framework for arbitrability. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court’s order in part, holding that claims arising under the Participating Physician Agreement must be referred to arbitration because the agreement delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Claims under the Medicare and QUEST Agreements were also subject to arbitration, as the arbitration clauses were not shown to be substantively unconscionable. However, the Court held that the claims of one patient and the physician as a patient were not subject to mandatory arbitration, and another patient’s claims were not subject to a grievance and appeals clause. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Frederick A. Nitta, M.D., Inc. v. Hawaii Medical Service Association." on Justia Law

A Georgia corporation operates several hospitals and clinics in west Georgia and, through an affiliated entity, also operates a small hospital and clinics in east Alabama. An Alabama resident sought treatment at the Alabama hospital and was subsequently transferred by ambulance to the corporation’s Georgia facility for a heart-catheterization procedure. The procedure was performed by a Georgia-based physician employed by the corporation, who is not licensed in Alabama and has never practiced there. The patient alleges that the physician’s negligence during the procedure in Georgia caused him to suffer renal failure and require further medical intervention. The patient sued both the corporation and the physician in the Randolph Circuit Court in Alabama, asserting claims under both Alabama and Georgia medical liability statutes and alleging the corporation’s vicarious liability for the physician’s actions.The physician and the corporation moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the Alabama court lacked personal jurisdiction over them and that venue was improper. The circuit court dismissed the claims against the physician for lack of personal jurisdiction but denied the corporation’s motion to dismiss. The corporation then petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to dismiss the claims against it.The Supreme Court of Alabama held that the corporation was not subject to general jurisdiction in Alabama, as it was neither incorporated nor had its principal place of business there. However, the Court found that specific personal jurisdiction existed because the patient’s treatment began at the Alabama facility operated by the corporation, and the subsequent care in Georgia was sufficiently related to the corporation’s activities in Alabama. The Court also concluded that the corporation had not demonstrated a clear legal right to dismissal based on improper venue, as it had not adequately addressed whether Alabama’s venue statute applied to claims brought under another state’s law. The petition for a writ of mandamus was denied. View "Ex parte Tanner Medical Center, Inc." on Justia Law

After the death of Arthur L. Bacon, Richard D. Gaynor, acting as the personal representative of Bacon’s estate, filed a lawsuit against Tom L. Larkin and Jerome B. Williams. The complaint alleged that a durable power of attorney in favor of Larkin was recorded shortly after Bacon’s death, though it was purportedly executed in 2019. It further claimed that, just hours before Bacon died, Larkin executed a deed transferring all of Bacon’s real property to Williams. The estate sought to void the conveyance and requested damages.Williams and Larkin each filed motions to dismiss. The Talladega Circuit Court granted Larkin’s motion to dismiss on March 3, 2025, but did not resolve the claims against Williams. On the same day, the court ordered the plaintiff to amend the complaint within 30 days to include necessary heirs or real parties in interest. Gaynor requested more time to respond, which both defendants opposed. On April 11, 2025, Gaynor filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Alabama, challenging the dismissal of Larkin. Subsequently, the circuit court entered an order stating that the dismissal of Larkin was a final order for purposes of appeal, referencing Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed whether it had jurisdiction over the appeal. The Court held that, because the circuit court’s order did not dispose of all claims against all parties and lacked a proper Rule 54(b) certification at the time the notice of appeal was filed, there was no final judgment. The Court declined to remand for possible certification and dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order. View "Gaynor v. Larkin" on Justia Law

The dispute involved multiple parties and claims arising from business dealings between a printing company and several associated entities and individuals. The plaintiff brought four claims, including breach of contract and fraud, against four defendants. The defendants responded with various counterclaims, including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and others. Over the course of the litigation, some claims were resolved through motions, while others remained pending.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed the fraud claim and one defendant early in the proceedings. Later, the court granted summary judgment on certain breach of contract claims but did not issue a final judgment or certify its order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The parties then attempted to dismiss the remaining claims between some of them using a joint motion under Rule 41(a)(2), believing that the summary judgment order had fully resolved the other claims. The court granted this motion and subsequently dismissed the settled claims between two parties with prejudice. The plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal, seeking review of the summary judgment and denial of reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and determined that it lacked jurisdiction. The court held that, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a) allows for voluntary dismissal only of an entire action, not individual claims, and that partial summary judgment orders are not final or appealable unless certified under Rule 54(b). Because the district court had not entered a Rule 54(b) certification and unresolved claims remained, the attempted partial dismissal was ineffective, and the action was not fully resolved. As a result, there was no final decision to appeal, and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "CMYK Enterprises, Inc. v. Advanced Print Technologies, LLC" on Justia Law

A 78-year-old inmate in a Texas men’s prison, who identifies as a transgender woman, sought sex-reassignment surgery after being diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2013. The inmate received hormone therapy and was chemically castrated, but was ultimately denied surgery by prison medical staff. The inmate alleged that state officials discriminated by providing reconstructive vaginoplasty to female inmates while denying similar surgery to transgender inmates, claiming a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas initially denied motions to dismiss based on sovereign immunity, finding that the inmate was similarly situated to cisgender female inmates and that the claims met the requirements of the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity. On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s orders, holding that the inmate had not adequately pled that any defendant was sufficiently connected to enforcement of the challenged policy. On remand, after further proceedings and discovery, the district court granted judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the defendants were either improper under Ex parte Young or that the requested relief was not permitted, and dismissed the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that the inmate lacked standing. The court found that the alleged injury was not fairly traceable to the defendants, as there was no evidence that any treating physician had determined the inmate was a suitable candidate for surgery or would refer the inmate for the procedure. Without such evidence, the injury could not be redressed by a favorable judicial decision against the defendants. View "Haverkamp v. Linthicum" on Justia Law

A hotel in the Town of Newburgh, New York, agreed to provide long-term housing to asylum seekers as part of a program initiated by New York City. In response, the Town alleged that the hotel’s actions violated local zoning and occupancy ordinances, which limited hotel stays to transient guests for no more than 30 days. The Town inspected the hotel, found modifications suggesting long-term use, and filed suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange County, seeking to enjoin the hotel from housing asylum seekers for extended periods. The state court issued a temporary restraining order, but allowed the asylum seekers already present to remain pending further orders.The hotel removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, arguing that the Town’s enforcement was racially motivated and violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thus justifying removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). The district court found that removal was improper because the hotel had not sufficiently pleaded grounds for removal under § 1443(1), and remanded the case to state court.While the hotel’s appeal of the remand order was pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the underlying state court action was discontinued with prejudice after the asylum seekers left and the City ended its program. The Second Circuit determined that, because the state court case was permanently terminated, there was no longer a live controversy regarding removal. The court held the appeal was moot and, following standard practice when mootness occurs through no fault of the appellant, vacated the district court’s remand order and dismissed the appeal. View "Town of Newburgh v. Newburgh EOM LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, a condominium unit was sold at a foreclosure sale in 2014 to Tyroshi Investments after the original owner defaulted on both her mortgage and condominium assessments. The condominium association conducted the sale, and Tyroshi subsequently rented out the unit. In 2015, the mortgage and deed of trust were transferred to U.S. Bank, which then initiated its own judicial foreclosure and purchased the unit at a second sale in 2016. Both Tyroshi and U.S. Bank recorded their deeds at different times, and for a period, Tyroshi’s tenants continued to occupy the unit while U.S. Bank paid taxes and assessments. In 2020, Tyroshi was denied access to the unit, leading to litigation over rightful ownership.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia held a bench trial and determined that U.S. Bank’s claims to quiet title and invalidate the 2014 foreclosure sale were timely, applying a fifteen-year statute of limitations for actions “for the recovery of lands” under D.C. Code § 12-301(a)(1). The court declared the 2014 sale invalid and found U.S. Bank to be the legal owner. Tyroshi appealed, arguing that the claims were untimely.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that the fifteen-year limitations period applies only to possessory actions, such as ejectment or adverse possession, not to claims like wrongful foreclosure or breach of contract, which are subject to shorter limitations periods. The court found that U.S. Bank’s claims were time-barred, except for a portion of its unjust enrichment claim related to payments made within three years of the suit. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded for consideration of the unjust enrichment claim. View "Tyroshi Investments, LLC v. U.S. Bank, NA, Successor Trustee to LaSalle Bank NA" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit against eleven defendants, alleging a scheme involving breach of employment agreements, misappropriation of funds, embezzlement, and fraud. The suit was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi. Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, citing diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs sought to remand the case to state court, relying on a provision in three defendants’ contracts that specified venue in Harrison County, Mississippi, and included language about consent to personal jurisdiction and venue solely within those forums, along with a waiver of objections to those forums.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi interpreted the contractual provision as a waiver of the defendants’ right to remove the case to federal court. The district court reasoned that the provision gave the first-filing party the sole right to choose the court, and that by waiving objections to venue and personal jurisdiction, the defendants had also waived their removal rights. Consequently, the district court remanded the case to state court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s interpretation of the contractual waiver de novo, applying Mississippi law. The Fifth Circuit held that the contract provision did not constitute a clear and unequivocal waiver of the defendants’ right to remove the case to federal court. The court found that the language regarding venue and jurisdiction could reasonably refer to geographic location and did not explicitly or implicitly waive removal rights, especially since the contract contemplated litigation in both state and federal courts in Harrison County. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s remand order. View "Gulf Coast Pharmaceuticals Plus, L.L.C. v. RFT Consulting" on Justia Law

The founder and former CEO of a national pizza company brought suit against a public relations firm that had previously provided services to the company. The dispute arose after the plaintiff alleged that the firm leaked confidential and damaging information about him to the press, in violation of a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) that included an arbitration clause. The NDA was executed after the company requested the firm sign it, anticipating close work with the plaintiff during a period of reputational crisis. The relationship between the parties deteriorated following a conference call in which the plaintiff made controversial remarks, which were later reported in the media, leading to his resignation from the company’s board.The case was initially filed in state court and then removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Over several years, the litigation involved multiple amended complaints, extensive discovery, and dispositive motions. The defendant did not move to compel arbitration until after the district court denied summary judgment on the NDA claim. The district court held a bench trial and found that the NDA was enforceable and contained a binding arbitration provision. However, the court concluded that the defendant had defaulted on its right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case for years before seeking arbitration, and thus denied the motion to compel arbitration.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s contract formation ruling but had jurisdiction to review the default determination. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the defendant defaulted on its arbitration rights by seeking a merits resolution in court before moving to compel arbitration. The court dismissed the appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction, otherwise affirmed the district court’s judgment, and denied the plaintiff’s request for sanctions. View "Schnatter v. 247 Group, LLC" on Justia Law

A law firm serving on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in multidistrict litigation related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks was found to have deliberately leaked a confidential deposition transcript to a reporter, violating two court-issued protective orders. The firm, Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, had previously received a warning for a similar breach. After the leak, the firm conducted an internal investigation but failed to question the individual responsible. When the breach was investigated by the court, the firm initially denied responsibility and submitted deficient declarations before ultimately admitting the leak.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, after a two-day evidentiary hearing before a Magistrate Judge, found that the firm had willfully violated the protective orders and misled the court. The court imposed sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b), including removal of the firm from the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee, an order to pay attorney’s fees, and a bar on receiving certain funds. The District Judge affirmed these sanctions. The firm’s petition for a writ of mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was denied, after which the firm filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the sanctions order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a Rule 37(b) sanctions order against attorneys for discovery violations is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. The court reasoned that such orders are effectively reviewable after final judgment and do not resolve important issues separate from the merits of the underlying litigation. Accordingly, the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "In re: Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001" on Justia Law