Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A service-disabled veteran and his company, MJL Enterprises, LLC, alleged that the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Section 8(a) Business Development Program discriminated against him based on race. The program uses a race-conscious presumption to determine social disadvantage, which the plaintiffs argued was unconstitutional. They sought a declaration that the program's racial classifications were unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case, ruling it moot due to changes in the 8(a) Program following an injunction in another case, Ultima Services Corp. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture. The district court also found that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to demonstrate economic disadvantage and could not establish social disadvantage without the presumption.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court’s ruling on mootness, agreeing with the plaintiffs that the case was not moot because the changes to the 8(a) Program were not final and could be appealed. However, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal based on lack of standing. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an injury in fact, as they did not show they were "able and ready" to bid on 8(a) Program contracts due to their inability to meet the program’s social and economic disadvantage requirements. The court also found that the plaintiffs could not establish causation or redressability, as their ineligibility for the program was not solely due to the race-conscious presumption.The Fourth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue and affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Hierholzer v. Guzman" on Justia Law

Shawn Montgomery was severely injured when his truck was hit by a tractor-trailer driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena, who was employed by motor carrier Caribe Transport II, LLC. The shipment was coordinated by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., a freight broker. Montgomery sued Varela-Mojena, Caribe, and Robinson, alleging that Robinson negligently hired Varela-Mojena and Caribe and was vicariously liable for their actions.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted partial summary judgment in favor of Robinson on the vicarious liability claim, finding that Varela-Mojena and Caribe were independent contractors, not agents of Robinson. Following the Seventh Circuit's decision in Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., which held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preempts state law claims against freight brokers for negligent hiring, the district court also granted judgment for Robinson on the negligent hiring claims. Final judgment was entered in favor of Robinson to facilitate Montgomery's appeal, while his claims against Varela-Mojena and Caribe were stayed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that Robinson did not exercise the necessary control over Caribe and Varela-Mojena to establish an agency relationship, thus negating vicarious liability. The court also declined to overrule its precedent in Ye, maintaining that the FAAAA preempts state law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Robinson. View "Montgomery v. C.H. Robinson Company" on Justia Law

Jayson O’Neill requested to examine certain documents from the Office of the Governor of Montana, specifically 2021 Agency Bill Monitoring Forms (ABMs) and related emails. The Governor’s office denied the request, citing attorney-client privilege. O’Neill argued that the documents should be produced with redactions and a detailed privilege log. The Governor’s office maintained that the documents were entirely privileged but offered to provide a privilege log and documents for in camera review if directed by a court.O’Neill filed a complaint seeking an order to produce the requested documents under Article II, Section 9, of the Montana Constitution. The Governor asserted executive and deliberative process privileges. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The First Judicial District Court partially granted O’Neill’s motion, holding that Montana law did not recognize executive or deliberative process privileges and required in camera review to determine the applicability of attorney-client privilege and privacy exceptions. The Governor’s subsequent motion for relief from judgment was deemed denied.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that Montana law does recognize a form of gubernatorial privilege rooted in the state’s constitutional history, allowing the Governor to receive candid advice necessary for executing constitutional duties. However, this privilege is not absolute and must be assessed through in camera review to determine if the information is essential and if its disclosure would chill future candor. The court reversed the lower court’s ruling that no form of executive privilege is recognized in Montana but affirmed the need for in camera review to evaluate the claims of privilege. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "O'Neill v. Gianforte" on Justia Law

North American Sugar Industries, Inc. ("North American Sugar") filed a lawsuit against five defendants under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, alleging that the defendants unlawfully trafficked its property, which was confiscated by the Cuban government. The defendants include three East Asian corporations (Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology Co., Ltd., Goldwind International Holdings (HK) Ltd., and BBC Chartering Singapore Pte Ltd.), and two U.S. corporations (DSV Air & Sea, Inc. and BBC Chartering USA, LLC). North American Sugar claimed that the defendants participated in a conspiracy involving trafficking from China, through Miami, Florida, and then to Puerto Carupano, Cuba.The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation. The magistrate judge found that the alleged trafficking occurred in Cuba, not Florida, and that none of the defendants engaged in any activity in Florida related to the shipments. North American Sugar objected, but the district court upheld the recommendation, concluding that the Helms-Burton Act violations occurred only in Cuba.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its narrow interpretation of the Helms-Burton Act. The Act broadly defines "traffics" to include various activities, and the court noted that trafficking can occur outside of Cuba. The appellate court also found that the district court improperly weighed conflicting evidence without holding an evidentiary hearing, as required under the prima facie standard.The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to reconsider personal jurisdiction in light of the correct interpretation of the Helms-Burton Act and to address whether any defendants committed trafficking activities in Florida. The court also directed the district court to consider the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction if it finds jurisdiction over any defendant. View "North American Sugar Industries, Inc. v. Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

In January 2021, Bertrand Nedoss, an 87-year-old resident of an assisted-living facility in Morton Grove, Illinois, wandered out of the facility, developed hypothermia, and died of cardiac arrest. His estate filed a negligence and wrongful-death lawsuit against Welltower Tenant Group, the facility’s owner, and Frontier Management, its operator. Welltower and Frontier were insured under a "claims made" policy by Church Mutual Insurance Company, effective from July 1, 2020, to July 1, 2021. The estate filed the lawsuit in October 2021, after the policy expired. However, nine days after Bertrand’s death, an attorney for the Nedoss family sent a letter to the facility, claiming an attorney’s lien and demanding evidence preservation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that the attorney’s letter qualified as a "claim" under the policy, triggering Church Mutual’s duty to defend. The court entered partial summary judgment for Welltower and Frontier and stayed the rest of the federal case pending the outcome of the state lawsuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. On the eve of oral argument, Welltower and Frontier settled with the estate, and the state-court case was dismissed. This development mooted the appeal. The stay order was the only possible basis for appellate jurisdiction, and the partial summary judgment was not a final order. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot, noting that the dismissal of the state-court case removed the justification for the stay and rendered any appellate ruling on the stay irrelevant. View "Church Mutual Insurance Company v. Frontier Management, LLC" on Justia Law

Father Constantine P. Rogakos, an 86-year-old retired Greek-Orthodox priest, visited Bon Secours-DePaul Medical Center for an outpatient abdominal ultrasound. He used a cane due to a shuffled gait and had a history of falls. At the hospital, he was provided a wheelchair to reach the waiting room. In the ultrasound room, he was instructed to change into a medical gown. While changing, he leaned on a wheeled hospital stretcher, which moved, causing him to fall and sustain severe injuries. He later died from these injuries.The Administrator of his estate filed a wrongful death and survivorship action against the hospital, alleging negligence by the sonographer, Joanna Regan, for failing to assist and ensure the stretcher's wheels were locked. The circuit court denied the hospital's motion to strike and refused to allow a hospital stretcher as a demonstrative exhibit. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding $2,000,000. The hospital's post-trial motions were denied.The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the circuit court's decisions, including the admissibility of Father Rogakos' statements under the Dead Man’s Statute, the refusal to grant a multiple causes jury instruction, and the exclusion of the stretcher as a demonstrative exhibit. The hospital appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia.The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment. It held that the Dead Man’s Statute did not preclude the introduction of Father Rogakos' statements as they were conveyed by non-interested witnesses. The court also found no error in the circuit court's refusal to grant the multiple causes jury instruction, exclusion of the stretcher as a demonstrative exhibit, and denial of the hospital's motion to strike, as the evidence supported the jury's verdict. View "Bon Secours-DePaul Medical Center v. Rogakos-Russell" on Justia Law

The case involves a failed business venture between longtime friends, resulting in a $20 million judgment against Stanley N. Cohen for negligent misrepresentation. Cohen, a professor at Stanford University, and his colleague discovered a genetic mutation related to Huntington’s disease and formed a company, Nuredis, with Moshe and Chris Alafi, who invested $20 million. The FDA later rejected Nuredis’s request to conduct human clinical trials for the drug HD106 due to its toxicity. The Alafis sued Cohen and his colleague for negligent misrepresentation and other related causes, alleging they failed to disclose the drug’s history of being withdrawn from the market due to toxicity.The Santa Clara County Superior Court held a bench trial and found in favor of the plaintiffs on the negligent misrepresentation claim against Cohen, awarding $20 million in damages. The court did not reach the other causes of action. Cohen appealed, arguing that the claim failed as a matter of law and that the trial court committed prejudicial error by not issuing a statement of decision upon his request.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, found that the trial court’s failure to issue the requested statement of decision was prejudicial error, as it prevented effective appellate review of the trial court’s factual and legal findings. Consequently, the appellate court did not address Cohen’s arguments on the merits and reversed and remanded the case for the trial court to issue the statement of decision. View "Alafi v. Cohen" on Justia Law

Shahriyar Shayan appealed an order denying his motion to quash a writ of execution for attorney fees filed by Zohreh McIntyre Shayan. Shahriyar argued that the writ should be quashed because it was sought more than ten years after the entry of judgment, violating Code of Civil Procedure section 683.020, and was subject to the renewal requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 683.130. He contended that judgments for attorney fees under the Family Code are not exempt from these requirements.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Shahriyar's request to set aside the writ of execution. The court found that the judgment for attorney fees, entered under the Family Code, was enforceable until satisfied in full and did not require renewal under Family Code section 291, subdivision (b). Shahriyar appealed this decision.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court held that when a judgment for attorney fees is entered under the Family Code, it is enforceable until paid in full, and failure to renew the judgment does not affect its enforceability. The court found that the plain language of Family Code section 291, its legislative history, and common sense supported this interpretation. The court affirmed the lower court's order, concluding that Family Code section 291's reference to money judgments includes those for attorney fees, exempting them from the ten-year limitation and renewal requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure. View "In re Marriage of Shayan" on Justia Law

Govind Vaghashia and other plaintiffs appealed a trial court order denying their motion to vacate a settlement agreement with Prashant and Mita Vaghashia. The settlement involved a $35 million payment from the Govind Parties to Prashant and Mita, with specific terms about property collateral and a quitclaim deed for a residence. Disputes arose over the interpretation of the agreement, leading to motions to enforce it by both parties. The trial court enforced the agreement but not in the manner the Govind Parties desired.The Los Angeles County Superior Court initially heard the case, where Prashant and Mita sued Govind and his affiliates, claiming a 50% interest in their business ventures. Govind counter-sued for mismanagement. A bench trial began but was paused for settlement discussions, resulting in the contested agreement. When disputes over the settlement terms emerged, both parties filed motions to enforce the agreement. The trial court ruled largely in favor of Prashant and Mita, enforcing the settlement.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision, holding that the Govind Parties were judicially estopped from seeking to vacate the settlement agreement after previously moving to enforce it. The appellate court noted that the Govind Parties' positions were totally inconsistent and that they had been successful in asserting the enforceability of the agreement in their initial motion. The court affirmed the trial court's orders, including the denial of the motion to vacate the settlement agreement. View "Vaghashia v. Vaghashia" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed two class action complaints against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. in Orange County Superior Court, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). They claimed that Experian failed to include a required statement in the "Summary of Rights" portion of their consumer reports, which informs consumers of additional rights under state law. Plaintiffs sought actual, statutory, and punitive damages. Experian removed the cases to federal court, where Plaintiffs argued they lacked standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution because they did not suffer concrete harm. The federal court agreed and remanded the cases back to state court.In state court, Experian moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Plaintiffs lacked standing under Wisconsin law and that their FCRA claim did not fall within the "zone of interests" the FCRA is designed to protect. Plaintiffs contended that California law should apply and that they had standing under California law. The trial court granted Experian's motion, relying on the precedent set by Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc., which held that a plaintiff must allege a concrete injury to have standing in California state courts. Plaintiffs appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found Limon persuasive and concluded that Plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not allege a concrete or particularized injury. The court held that an informational injury without adverse effects is insufficient to confer standing under California law. Therefore, the judgment in favor of Experian was affirmed. View "Muha v. Experian Information Solutions" on Justia Law