Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Jeremy Woods was injured in a car accident in 2017 and received medical care from Spine Specialists of Michigan PC. Woods assigned his right to payment of personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits to Spine Specialists, but MemberSelect Insurance Company refused to pay. Spine Specialists sued MemberSelect for payment. MemberSelect argued that the claims were barred by the one-year-back rule, which requires claims to be filed within one year of the medical services being rendered. The trial court granted MemberSelect's motion for summary disposition for services rendered before June 11, 2019, but denied it for services rendered between June 11, 2019, and August 12, 2020.The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, reasoning that the tolling provision added to the one-year-back rule in 2019 did not apply to claims that accrued before the amendment's effective date. The court held that PIP benefits accrue when the medical services are rendered, not when payment is denied.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the tolling provision added to MCL 500.3145 in 2019 does not apply retroactively to causes of action that began to accrue before the amendment became effective on June 11, 2019. The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, concluding that the claims for services rendered between June 11, 2019, and August 12, 2020, were barred by the one-year-back rule. The court emphasized that the Legislature did not indicate an intent for the tolling provision to apply retroactively and that applying it retroactively would impose new obligations on insurers for past transactions. View "Spine Specialists Of Michigan PC v. Memberselect Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The plaintiff sought damages from the Department of Children and Families (DCF), alleging religious discrimination during child protection proceedings that led to the termination of his parental rights. The trial court dismissed most of the plaintiff’s claims as time-barred but allowed some timely allegations related to the termination trial to proceed. DCF’s motion to reargue, asserting that the litigation privilege barred the remaining claims, was denied by the trial court.DCF appealed to the Appellate Court, which concluded that the litigation privilege did indeed bar the plaintiff’s remaining timely allegations and directed the trial court to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The trial court complied, dismissing the entire complaint before the plaintiff could seek further appellate review.The plaintiff and the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities argued that the Appellate Court erred in applying the litigation privilege to bar the discrimination claims. They contended that the privilege should not apply to DCF, a governmental entity, and that the legislature intended to abrogate the privilege in discrimination cases.The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the litigation privilege barred the plaintiff’s timely allegations related to DCF’s conduct during the termination trial. The court reasoned that the plaintiff’s claims were akin to defamation, to which the privilege applies, and not to vexatious litigation, which challenges the purpose of the underlying action. The court also found that other remedies were available to address DCF’s conduct and declined to adopt a rule precluding nonpersons from invoking the privilege.However, the Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court’s judgment to the extent that it directed the trial court to dismiss the entire complaint, as this hindered the plaintiff’s ability to appeal the dismissal of his untimely claims. The case was remanded to the Appellate Court to vacate the trial court’s judgment and to remand the case for a new judgment of dismissal, allowing the plaintiff to appeal the timeliness ruling. View "Ammar I. v. Dept. of Children & Families" on Justia Law

The case involves the foster parents of a minor child, J, who were initially granted intervenor status in neglect proceedings concerning J. The trial court later removed them as intervenors based on the Appellate Court's decision in In re Ryan C., which concluded that nonrelative foster parents are precluded by statute from intervening in neglect proceedings. The foster parents appealed this decision, arguing that In re Ryan C. was wrongly decided. While their appeal was pending, the trial court held a hearing on a motion to revoke J's commitment to the Commissioner's custody and transferred guardianship to J's biological father. The foster parents also filed a writ of error challenging this decision.The trial court initially granted the foster parents' motion to intervene in the neglect proceedings. However, after the Appellate Court's decision in In re Ryan C., the trial court removed them as intervenors. The foster parents appealed this removal, claiming that the decision in In re Ryan C. was incorrect. Subsequently, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to revoke J's commitment and transferred guardianship to J's biological father. The foster parents were not allowed to attend the entire hearing or give a sworn statement after hearing the evidence, which they claimed violated their right to be heard under the statute.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and concluded that In re Ryan C. was wrongly decided and must be overruled. The court held that the statute does not bar a trial court from granting a foster parent's request for permissive intervention in the dispositional phase of a neglect proceeding. The court reversed the trial court's order removing the foster parents as intervenors and granted the writ of error, remanding the case for a new revocation hearing. The court also concluded that the foster parents' right to be heard includes the right to be present throughout the proceeding and to argue at the appropriate time as to the child's best interest in light of the evidence presented. View "In re Jewelyette M." on Justia Law

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) adopted a rule requiring current lessees of offshore drilling facilities in the Gulf of Mexico to obtain financial assurance bonds to cover potential future decommissioning liabilities. Several states and industry groups sued to vacate the rule, arguing it imposed undue financial burdens. The American Petroleum Institute (API), representing a broad range of oil and gas companies, sought to intervene in defense of the rule, claiming its members had unique interests in upholding it.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana denied API's motion to intervene. The court found the motion procedurally defective because API did not attach a proposed answer to its motion, as required by local rules. Substantively, the court concluded that API failed to demonstrate that BOEM would inadequately represent its interests, a necessary showing for intervention as of right. The court also denied permissive intervention, suggesting that API could present its unique perspective through an amicus brief instead.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of API's motion to intervene. It held that API did not overcome the presumption that BOEM adequately represented its interests, as API failed to show any specific adversity of interest or actions by BOEM that were contrary to API's interests. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of permissive intervention, agreeing that API could effectively present its views as an amicus curiae. Thus, the district court's order denying intervention was affirmed. View "Louisiana v. Burgum" on Justia Law

Mitchell McBroom and Barbara Lewis-Baca, employees of the Missoula Urban Transportation District (MUTD) and members of the Teamsters Local 2 Union, were disciplined with three days of unpaid suspension for conducting union activity during work hours. They challenged this discipline through the grievance process outlined in their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The grievance process concluded with a settlement on May 4, 2023, reducing the discipline to written warnings and granting backpay. Dissatisfied with the settlement, the employees filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) claim against MUTD on June 29, 2023.The Board of Personnel Appeals (BOPA) reviewed the ULP claim and determined that the six-month statute of limitations for filing the claim had expired. The employees argued that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled due to their reliance on the CBA grievance process. BOPA issued a final order affirming the initial determination that the statute of limitations had lapsed.The employees sought judicial review, arguing that BOPA erred in not tolling the statute of limitations. The Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, concluded that BOPA did not err and that the employees could have filed their ULP claim before the expiration of the statute of limitations while the grievance process was ongoing. The employees then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana.The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the employees failed to file their ULP claim within the six-month statute of limitations. The court found that the CBA specifically excluded state law claims from the grievance process, and nothing prevented the employees from filing their ULP claim within the statutory period. The court concluded that the statute of limitations was not equitably tolled and upheld the dismissal of the ULP claim. View "McBroom v. Board of Personnel Appeals" on Justia Law

Ethel Barry Masters filed a petition against Jacob Dawson in 2019, alleging replevin, conversion, and unjust enrichment after Dawson refused to surrender possession of four vehicles that belonged to Masters' deceased long-term companion. Dawson disputed ownership and obstructed the legal process, including failing to respond to requests for admissions and barricading the vehicles to prevent towing. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Masters, ordering Dawson to surrender the vehicles, which he did not comply with. Dawson's attorney withdrew due to ethical concerns, and subsequent attorneys also withdrew due to Dawson's failure to pay legal fees.The Circuit Court of St. Louis County scheduled multiple trial dates, which were postponed due to Dawson's actions, including retaining new attorneys and filing motions for continuance. Dawson failed to appear for a pretrial conference, leading the circuit court to cancel the jury trial and enter a default judgment in favor of Masters, awarding her $83,035.41 in actual damages and an equal amount in punitive damages. Dawson's conduct was deemed contemptuous, justifying punitive damages to deter similar behavior.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case and found that Dawson's constitutional claims regarding the right to a jury trial were unpreserved because he did not adequately raise them in his motion for a new trial. The court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by sanctioning Dawson due to his pattern of obstructive behavior. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court's judgment, upholding the damages awarded to Masters. View "Masters v. Dawson" on Justia Law

John Nawara, a former correctional officer at Cook County Jail, had several altercations with other county employees. As a result, the Cook County Sheriff's Office required him to undergo a fitness-for-duty examination and sign medical information release forms. Nawara initially resisted but eventually complied. Before doing so, he sued Cook County and Sheriff Thomas Dart, alleging that the examination requirement and inquiry into his mental health violated § 12112(d)(4) of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found in favor of Nawara, but the jury awarded him zero damages. Nawara filed a post-trial motion requesting back pay, lost pension benefits, and restoration of his seniority. The court granted the restoration of seniority but denied the request for back pay, concluding that the violation of § 12112(d)(4) could not support an award of back pay. Nawara appealed the denial of back pay, and the Sheriff cross-appealed the restoration of seniority.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to restore Nawara's seniority, finding that it could still benefit him in his current role as a police officer within the Sheriff's Office. However, the court reversed the district court's denial of back pay. The Seventh Circuit held that a violation of § 12112(d)(4) of the ADA constitutes discrimination on the basis of disability, thus entitling Nawara to request back pay. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Nawara v Cook County Municipality" on Justia Law

Gregory Gliner, a dual citizen of the United Kingdom and the United States, sought to identify the anonymous operator of the PoliticalLore.com website and the pseudonymous author of an allegedly defamatory article published on the website. Gliner intended to use this information for a defamation lawsuit in the United Kingdom. He filed an ex parte application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to obtain discovery from Dynadot, Inc., a California-based company that provided domain registration and privacy protection services for the website.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Gliner’s application, citing the First Amendment interests of the website operator and the article author. The court did not make any relevant factual findings and did not address the statutory requirements or the Intel factors for granting discovery under § 1782. Gliner subsequently filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the district court also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court abused its discretion. The appellate court held that the First Amendment protections cited by the district court did not apply because there was no evidence that the website operator or the article author were U.S. citizens or present in the United States. Additionally, the court found no indication that the website had a U.S. audience whose First Amendment rights might be implicated. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further consideration of the § 1782 statutory factors and the Intel factors. The district court was instructed to allow Dynadot and any affected parties to contest the subpoenas if issued. View "IN RE EX PARTE APPLICATION OF GLINER" on Justia Law

A Salvadoran national filed two petitions for review of decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The first petition challenges the BIA's January 2024 decision upholding the denial by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of his applications for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The second petition challenges the BIA's March 2024 denial of his motion to reopen his administrative proceedings to seek a continuance or administrative closure while his U visa petition is pending.The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against the petitioner in May 2022 for entering the United States without inspection. An immigration court found him removable and designated El Salvador as the country of removal. The petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal under the INA, and protection under the CAT. The IJ denied his applications, finding that his proposed particular social group (PSG) was not cognizable and that he failed to establish a sufficient likelihood of harm if removed to El Salvador. The BIA vacated and remanded for further findings, but the IJ again denied relief. The BIA dismissed the appeal, affirming the IJ's findings.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the BIA may have endorsed the IJ's use of an improper "ocular visibility" standard in evaluating the social distinction of the petitioner's proposed PSG. The court also noted ambiguity in the BIA's analysis regarding the scope of the petitioner's PSG. Consequently, the court granted the first petition, remanded for further proceedings, and dismissed the second petition as moot. The petitioner may renew his applications for withholding of removal and CAT protection on remand. View "Alvarez Mendoza v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Jose and Kirstin Aroca executed a "Note Secured by Deed of Trust" in 2007, agreeing to pay Tang Investment Company $40,000, secured by real property in Pinal County. They made interest-only payments for one year and then stopped. Tang did not initiate foreclosure or any action to enforce the debt, which remains unpaid. In 2022, the Arocas filed a suit to quiet title, claiming the Deed of Trust was invalid as the statute of limitations on the Note had expired.The Superior Court in Pinal County dismissed the Arocas' complaint, agreeing with Tang that under A.R.S. § 33-714, the Deed of Trust lien was valid until 2057. The court of appeals reversed, holding that A.R.S. § 33-714 did not extend the statute of limitations for foreclosure, which was governed by A.R.S. § 33-816 and A.R.S. § 12-548(A)(1), setting a six-year limit. The court concluded that Tang could not foreclose or initiate a trustee’s sale after 2018 and that the Arocas were entitled to quiet title under A.R.S. § 12-1104(B).The Supreme Court of Arizona reviewed the case and held that the equitable principles from Provident Mut. Bldg.-Loan Ass’n v. Schwertner do not override the statutory rights established in A.R.S. § 12-1104(B). The court determined that an action to quiet title can proceed even if the underlying debt remains unpaid, provided the statute of limitations for enforcing the debt has expired. The court reversed the Superior Court's judgment and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the Arocas, affirming their right to quiet title. The court also vacated parts of the court of appeals' opinion but left the attorney fees award intact. Tang's request for attorney fees and costs was denied. View "AROCA v TANG INVESTMENT" on Justia Law