Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In October 2017, the FBI mistakenly raided the home of Hilliard Toi Cliatt, Curtrina Martin, and her 7-year-old son in suburban Atlanta, instead of the intended gang hideout. The error occurred due to Special Agent Guerra's reliance on a personal GPS device and the team's failure to notice the correct street sign and house number. The raid resulted in personal injuries and property damage. The plaintiffs sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for the officers' negligent and intentional actions.The district court granted summary judgment to the government, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The Eleventh Circuit applied a unique approach to FTCA claims, holding that the law enforcement proviso in §2680(h) overrides all exceptions, including the discretionary-function exception, allowing intentional-tort claims to proceed without further analysis. The court also allowed the government to assert a Supremacy Clause defense, which it found valid, leading to summary judgment for the United States.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the law enforcement proviso in §2680(h) overrides only the intentional-tort exception, not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions in §2680. The Court also held that the Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in FTCA suits. The case was vacated and remanded to the Eleventh Circuit to reconsider whether the discretionary-function exception bars the plaintiffs' claims and to assess liability under Georgia state law without reference to a Supremacy Clause defense. View "Martin v. United States" on Justia Law

Donte Parrish, a federal inmate, was placed in restrictive segregated confinement for 23 months due to his suspected involvement in another inmate's death. After being cleared of wrongdoing by a hearing officer, Parrish filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court seeking damages for his confinement. The District Court dismissed his case on March 23, 2020, citing some claims as untimely and others as unexhausted. Parrish, who had been transferred to a different facility, received the dismissal order three months later and promptly filed a notice of appeal, explaining the delay.The Fourth Circuit recognized that Parrish's notice of appeal was filed after the 60-day appeal period for suits against the United States. The court construed his filing as a motion to reopen the time to appeal under 28 U.S.C. §2107(c). On remand, the District Court granted a 14-day reopening period, but Parrish did not file a second notice of appeal. Both Parrish and the United States argued that the original notice was sufficient, but the Fourth Circuit held that Parrish's failure to file a new notice within the reopened period deprived the court of jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the court grants reopening does not need to file a second notice after reopening. The original notice relates forward to the date reopening is granted. The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's decision, allowing Parrish's appeal to proceed. View "Parrish v. United States" on Justia Law

Mitek Systems, Inc. (Mitek) filed a declaratory judgment action against United Services Automobile Association (USAA) seeking a declaration of non-infringement concerning four patents related to its MiSnap software product. Mitek argued that it faced potential liability for direct, induced, and contributory infringement, as well as indemnification demands from its licensees after USAA sent them letters seeking to sell licenses to USAA patents.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas initially dismissed Mitek’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and alternatively declined to exercise jurisdiction. On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to conduct a more detailed analysis. On remand, the district court again dismissed the case, finding no subject-matter jurisdiction and reiterating its decision to decline jurisdiction even if it existed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court agreed that Mitek did not have a reasonable apprehension of suit for direct, induced, or contributory infringement based on the record evidence, including USAA’s allegations and claim charts from prior litigation. The court also found that Mitek’s potential indemnification liability was not sufficient to establish jurisdiction, as the indemnification agreements contained applicable carve-outs and did not create a reasonable potential for liability. Additionally, the court upheld the district court’s discretionary decision to decline jurisdiction, noting that intervention in future litigation involving Mitek’s customers would be a more effective remedy. View "MITEK SYSTEMS, INC. v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION " on Justia Law

James Hess filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Union Pacific Railroad Company, claiming he was unlawfully terminated due to his disability. Union Pacific has a "Fitness-for-Duty" policy requiring employees to disclose certain health conditions. Hess, who began working for Union Pacific in May 2013, was prescribed Xanax for post-traumatic stress disorder in 2015. In 2016, Union Pacific prohibited medications like Xanax, and in January 2017, Hess was removed from service and later disqualified from his job following a fitness-for-duty evaluation.The District Court for the District of Nebraska dismissed Hess's action as untimely, agreeing with Union Pacific that the statute of limitations was not tolled while the Harris class action was pending because Hess was not a member of the certified class. The Harris class action, filed in 2016, alleged that Union Pacific's fitness-for-duty policy discriminated against employees with disabilities. The class was initially defined broadly but was later certified under a narrower definition, excluding Hess. The class was decertified by the Eighth Circuit in March 2020, after which Hess filed an EEOC charge and received a right-to-sue letter.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Citing its recent decision in DeGeer v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., the court held that Hess was entitled to American Pipe tolling because he was not unambiguously excluded from the certified class. Therefore, the statute of limitations was tolled until the class was decertified. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, concluding that Hess's lawsuit was timely filed. View "Hess v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

Robert L. Palmer, a long-time employee of Union Pacific, alleged that the company discriminated against him due to his disability, diabetes, which led to diabetic retinopathy. After undergoing surgery for his right eye in 2011, Palmer continued working until November 2013, when his left eye developed blurred vision. Union Pacific then initiated a fitness-for-duty evaluation, resulting in a February 2014 letter from Dr. Holland, the Chief Medical Officer, imposing permanent work restrictions on Palmer. Despite submitting medical information from his eye doctor in May 2014, which cleared him for work, Palmer received a December 2014 letter reaffirming the permanent restrictions and stating that no further medical information would be considered.Palmer was part of a putative class action (Harris class) filed in February 2016, which alleged that Union Pacific's fitness-for-duty policy discriminated against employees with disabilities. The class was certified in February 2019 but decertified in March 2020. Palmer then filed an individual charge of discrimination with the EEOC in April 2020 and subsequently filed this action under the ADA, claiming his suit was timely due to tolling during the class action.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska dismissed Palmer's claims as time-barred, concluding that the only adverse employment action occurred in February 2014, outside the class definition period. Palmer's motion to reconsider or amend was denied, as the court found the December 2014 letter was not a separate adverse action but a consequence of the February 2014 action.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court relied on an outdated standard for adverse employment actions. Under the new standard from Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Palmer's allegations that the December 2014 letter caused him harm by denying future review opportunities were sufficient to constitute an adverse employment action. The appellate court reversed the district court's denial of reconsideration and leave to amend, remanding for further proceedings. View "Palmer v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

The Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM), representing generic drug manufacturers, challenged a Minnesota law regulating drug prices, Minn. Stat. § 62J.842, arguing it violated the dormant Commerce Clause. The law prohibits manufacturers from imposing excessive price increases on generic or off-patent drugs sold in Minnesota. The district court granted AAM's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding the law likely violated the dormant Commerce Clause.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota concluded that AAM was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim, faced a threat of irreparable harm, and that the balance of harms and public interest factors were neutral. Minnesota appealed, contesting the likelihood of success on the merits and the balance of harms/public interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s ruling for abuse of discretion and its legal conclusions de novo. The court found that the Minnesota law had the impermissible extraterritorial effect of controlling prices outside the state, similar to laws previously struck down by the Supreme Court. The court rejected Minnesota's argument that the law did not control out-of-state prices, noting that it effectively regulated out-of-state transactions if the drugs ended up in Minnesota.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that AAM was likely to succeed on the merits of its dormant Commerce Clause claim. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s assessment of the balance of harms and public interest, noting that protecting constitutional rights is always in the public interest. The preliminary injunction against the Minnesota law was upheld. View "Ass'n for Accessible Medicines v. Ellison" on Justia Law

The case involves a post-dismissal challenge to a trial court’s order that permanently sealed the petitioners’ actual names and allowed them to be identified by pseudonyms in court records. The petitioners, identified as John Does P, Q, R, and S, sought to prevent Thurston County from releasing unredacted sex offender records in response to a Public Records Act (PRA) request by Donna Zink. The trial court granted the Does’ motion for voluntary dismissal and entered a permanent order to maintain the use of pseudonyms and seal a court record listing their actual names.The trial court initially allowed the Does to proceed in pseudonym to preserve their ability to seek relief in their PRA injunction action. However, over the course of the litigation, nearly all of the Does’ PRA exemption claims were rejected, and Zink received most of the records she requested. The trial court’s preliminary orders allowing pseudonyms were based on the potential harm of being identified as sex offenders. On remand, the trial court granted the Does’ motion for voluntary dismissal and permanently sealed their names, citing compelling privacy and safety concerns.The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the trial court abused its discretion in permanently sealing the Disclosure Document and allowing the Does to remain in pseudonym. The court found that the trial court’s findings were insufficient to satisfy GR 15 or the Ishikawa factors, which require specific and compelling reasons to restrict public access to court records. The court noted that the Does’ identities as sex offenders were already publicly available, and the trial court’s order did not articulate new compelling privacy or safety concerns. The Supreme Court remanded the case with instructions to unseal the Disclosure Document, use the Does’ actual names in future proceedings, and replace the pseudonyms in court records with their actual names. View "Doe P v. Thurston County" on Justia Law

In June 2016, Terae Harris, driving an Enterprise rental car, backed out of a parking space and struck James Joplin on his motorcycle. Enterprise offered Joplin a $25,000 settlement in exchange for releasing all claims against both Enterprise and Harris. Joplin did not respond, and in May 2018, he sued Harris for $300,000. In May 2020, Joplin’s new attorney found the signed release and sent it to Enterprise, but it was illegible. Harris filed a plea of accord and satisfaction, claiming the release barred Joplin’s suit.The Circuit Court of Henrico County admitted an unsigned copy of the release as evidence, ruling that the parol evidence rule did not apply because the unsigned release was used to confirm the terms of the illegible signed release. The court granted Harris’ plea of accord and satisfaction, barring Joplin’s suit. Joplin appealed, arguing the unsigned release was improper parol evidence, his attorneys lacked authority to settle, and there was no mutual assent.The Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed the circuit court, holding that the unsigned release was improper parol evidence and that Harris had not met the burden of proof for its admissibility. The court did not address Joplin’s other arguments.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case and found that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the unsigned release. The court held that the parol evidence rule did not apply because the unsigned release was used to verify the terms of the illegible signed release, not to alter them. The court also found that the circuit court’s factual finding linking the two releases was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the Court of Appeals and entered final judgment for Harris. View "Harris v. Joplin" on Justia Law

Alonzo McClanahan, a former employee of DPR Construction, claimed workers' compensation benefits for an injury to his right shoulder that he alleged occurred on July 25, 2017, while moving heavy materials at work. DPR's claims administrator denied the claim, and McClanahan sought adjudication from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). During the trial, McClanahan testified about the injury, but DPR presented evidence and testimony from employees that contradicted his account. Medical evaluations were conducted by several doctors, including Dr. McGahan, who supported McClanahan's claim of an industrial injury.The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) ruled in favor of McClanahan, finding his testimony credible and supported by medical evidence. DPR filed a petition for reconsideration, which the WCJ recommended denying. The WCAB granted the petition for further review but ultimately affirmed the WCJ's decision in a two-to-one decision, despite acknowledging that the Hanley reports, which were not listed in the pretrial conference statement, were admitted in error. The dissenting board member believed the error warranted a return to the trial level for correction.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the WCAB did not err in its credibility determination under section 5313, as the WCJ provided sufficient reasons for finding McClanahan credible. However, the court agreed with DPR that the admission of the Hanley reports, which were not listed in the pretrial conference statement, violated section 5502. The court held that this error was not subject to harmless error analysis and annulled the WCAB's decision, remanding the case for reconsideration without reference to the Hanley reports. View "DPR Construction v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board" on Justia Law

Adetayo Sotade, a defendant in a criminal case in Douglas County, Colorado, is charged with second-degree kidnapping, sexual assault, and unlawful sexual contact. During the investigation, the Colorado Bureau of Investigations (CBI) conducted forensic testing, and it was later discovered that a CBI DNA analyst, Yvonne "Missy" Woods, had tampered with DNA testing in numerous cases. Sotade's defense team requested records related to Woods' misconduct from the CBI under the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act (CCJRA). The CBI provided some documents but withheld others, prompting Sotade to file an application in the Douglas County District Court to compel the CBI to release the records.The Douglas County District Court held a hearing and concluded it had ancillary jurisdiction to hear the case, despite the CBI's argument that the court lacked jurisdiction because the records were located in Jefferson County. The CBI then filed a petition with the Colorado Supreme Court, arguing that the CCJRA requires such applications to be filed in the district where the records are located and that ancillary jurisdiction was not applicable.The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the plain language of the CCJRA requires that a show-cause hearing must take place in the district court where the records are located. The court held that ancillary jurisdiction is not available when a specific statutory provision applies. Therefore, the court made the order to show cause absolute, ruling that the Douglas County District Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the application and that it should have been filed in Jefferson County. View "People v. Sotade" on Justia Law