Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Fane Lozman owns a parcel of submerged and upland land in the City of Riviera Beach, Florida. After the city enacted a comprehensive plan and ordinance restricting development, Lozman sued, claiming the city deprived his property of all beneficial economic use without just compensation. Lozman has not applied for any permits, variances, or rezoning to understand the extent of permitted development on his land. He also faced federal and state enforcement actions for unauthorized modifications to his property.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment for Riviera Beach. The court found that Lozman did not have any right to fill his submerged land under federal and state law, was not denied all economically productive or beneficial uses of his land, and did not plead a ripe Penn Central regulatory taking claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Lozman's claim was not ripe for judicial review because he had not received a final decision from Riviera Beach regarding the application of the comprehensive plan and ordinance to his property. Lozman had not applied for any permits, variances, or rezoning, which are necessary to determine the nature and extent of permitted development. The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss Lozman’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach" on Justia Law

In February 2020, a police officer in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, shot and killed a Black teenager, Alvin Cole. Following the incident, community members organized protests against police violence and racism. Anticipating unrest after the district attorney decided not to charge the officer, the mayor imposed a curfew. Plaintiffs, affected by the curfew and police conduct, filed constitutional and state law claims against the City of Wauwatosa and individual defendants.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed most claims, allowing only First Amendment and Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) claims to proceed. The court later granted summary judgment for the defendants on the First Amendment claims, leaving only the DPPA claims for trial. The jury ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants on the DPPA claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that the curfew was a permissible time, place, and manner restriction under the First Amendment. The court found that the curfew was content-neutral, served a significant government interest in public safety, was narrowly tailored, and left open ample alternative channels for communication. The court also upheld the dismissal of the plaintiffs' § 1983 claims against individual defendants, agreeing that the claims were inadequately pleaded and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying further amendments. Lastly, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s response to a jury question regarding the definition of “personal information” under the DPPA. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Knowlton v. City of Wauwatosa" on Justia Law

Nicholas and Stacy Boerson, owners of New Heights Farm I and II in Michigan, faced a disappointing corn and soybean harvest in 2019. They submitted crop insurance claims to Great American Insurance Company, which were delayed due to an ongoing federal fraud investigation. The Boersons sued Great American, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture for breach of contract, bad faith adjustment, and violations of insurance laws.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed the Boersons' claims. It ruled that claims related to Great American's nonpayment were unripe due to the ongoing investigation, while claims alleging false measurements and statements by Great American were ripe but subject to arbitration. The court also dismissed claims against the federal defendants on sovereign immunity grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. It held that the claims related to nonpayment were unripe because the insurance policy barred payment until the investigation concluded. The court also found that the arbitration agreement in the insurance policy covered the ripe claims against Great American, requiring those disputes to be resolved through arbitration. Additionally, the court ruled that sovereign immunity barred the claims against the federal defendants, as there was no clear waiver of immunity for constructive denial claims under the Federal Crop Insurance Act. View "New Heights Farm I, LLC v. Great American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Lamonte Jackson-Gibson celebrated his birthday with friends, including his girlfriend, Toriel Dixon, in Detroit’s Greektown neighborhood. While listening to street musicians, Sergeant Reginald Beasley and other officers asked the group to move along. Jackson-Gibson questioned the order, leading to a verbal exchange and some physical pushing. Sgt. Beasley tased Jackson-Gibson in the back while he was embracing Dixon, and both were arrested. They were charged with obstructing or resisting a police officer, and Jackson-Gibson was also charged with disturbing the peace. A jury acquitted them of all charges.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan reviewed the case. Sgt. Beasley moved for summary judgment on the excessive-force claims, arguing for qualified immunity, but did not move for summary judgment on the wrongful-arrest claims. The district court granted summary judgment on Dixon’s excessive-force claim but denied it for Jackson-Gibson’s excessive-force claim. Sgt. Beasley’s motion to reconsider was also denied, leading to this interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed Sgt. Beasley’s challenge to the wrongful-arrest claims for lack of jurisdiction, as he did not seek qualified immunity for those claims in the lower court. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on Jackson-Gibson’s excessive-force claim. The court held that a reasonable jury could find that Sgt. Beasley’s use of a taser was objectively unreasonable, as Jackson-Gibson’s alleged crimes were not severe, he did not pose an immediate threat, and he was not actively resisting arrest. The court also held that the right to be free from excessive force when not actively resisting was clearly established by 2019. View "Jackson-Gibson v. Beasley" on Justia Law

Angelica Joy Daoang lived in a house co-owned by her aunt, Carolina Balanza, and Balanza’s ex-boyfriend, Nicholas Perry. In September 2022, Perry and Balanza obtained restraining orders against each other due to domestic violence, and Perry did not return to the house. On February 16, 2024, Daoang obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Perry following an incident on February 14, 2024, where Perry entered the house through a window, leading to a confrontation with Daoang.The District Court of the Second Circuit dissolved the TRO after a hearing on February 26, 2024. The court found a lack of clear and convincing evidence of harassment as defined by Hawai'i Revised Statutes § 604-10.5. The court determined that there was no evidence of physical harm or threats thereof, and no "course of conduct" that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress. The court also questioned Daoang’s legal right to prevent Perry, a co-owner, from entering the house, ultimately concluding that Daoang was a guest rather than a tenant.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the district court did not err in dissolving the TRO, as there was no clear and convincing evidence of harassment under either definition provided by HRS § 604-10.5. The court noted that a single incident does not constitute a "course of conduct" required for harassment. The Supreme Court also provided guidance for handling cases related to domestic violence, emphasizing the importance of considering safety and suggesting alternative legal avenues for resolving conflicts. View "Daoang v. Perry" on Justia Law

Two employees of a publicly traded company raised concerns internally that the company had overstated its earnings by not accounting for slower-than-expected drilling speeds. Subsequently, an article in The Wall Street Journal reported similar allegations, and within three months, the company terminated both employees. The employees then filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, claiming their termination violated whistleblower protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). An administrative proceeding resulted in a preliminary order for their reinstatement, which the company ignored.The employees sought to enforce the reinstatement order in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The District Court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, interpreting the relevant statute as not granting it the power to enforce the preliminary order. The employees appealed this decision.While the appeal was pending, the employees chose to abandon the administrative process and filed a separate civil action in federal court. Consequently, the administrative proceedings were terminated. The company then moved to dismiss the appeal on mootness grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the employees' request to enforce the preliminary reinstatement order no longer satisfied the redressability requirement for Article III standing. The preliminary order was extinguished with the dismissal of the administrative proceedings, and a federal court cannot enforce a non-existent order. Therefore, the employees lost Article III standing during the litigation, and no exception to mootness applied. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it on mootness grounds. View "Gulden v. Exxon Mobil Corp" on Justia Law

In August 2014, a train operated by BNSF Railway Company collided with a pickup truck driven by Paul Watson at a railroad crossing in Pawnee County, Oklahoma. Watson, who was not wearing a seatbelt, died instantly, while his wife Terri and their minor child, both belted, survived with injuries. Terri Watson, on behalf of herself, her child, and as a representative of her deceased husband's estate, filed a wrongful death and personal injury lawsuit against BNSF, alleging negligent maintenance of the crossing and failure to install adequate safety features.The case went to trial, and after three weeks of testimony and evidence, the jury found in favor of BNSF on all claims. The plaintiffs' motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, found prejudicial errors in the jury instructions, specifically noting that the instructions were biased in favor of BNSF and required an excessive degree of care from Watson. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case on certiorari. The court found that the jury instructions, when considered as a whole, were not so prejudicial as to mislead the jury. The court noted that the instructions accurately reflected Oklahoma law and did not impose a higher standard of care on Watson than required. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, affirmed the trial court's judgment, and reinstated the jury's verdict in favor of BNSF. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "WATSON v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY" on Justia Law

The case involves the Ohio Democratic Party and two voters, Norman Wernet and Eric Duffy, who filed a mandamus action against Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose. They sought to compel LaRose to rescind Directive 2024-21, which requires individuals delivering absentee ballots for family members or disabled voters to complete an attestation at the board of elections and prohibits returning such ballots to a drop box. The directive aims to prevent "ballot harvesting" and ensure the integrity and security of absentee ballot delivery.Previously, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio ruled in League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose that certain Ohio laws limiting who can return absentee ballots for disabled voters were preempted by the federal Voting Rights Act. Following this, LaRose issued Directive 2024-21 and later Directive 2024-24 and Advisory 2024-03, which provided additional guidance but did not substantially alter the original directive.The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the relators' claims were barred by laches due to their unreasonable delay in filing the complaint. The court noted that the directive was issued on August 31, but the complaint was not filed until September 27, a 24-day delay. This delay was deemed unreasonable, especially given the time-sensitive nature of election-related matters. The court also found that the delay caused material prejudice to the Secretary of State and county boards of elections, as absentee voting had already begun, and changing the procedures at this stage would lead to voter confusion and administrative burdens.The Ohio Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus based on laches and did not address the merits of the relators' claims. The court also denied the motion to intervene filed by the Republican National Committee and the Ohio Republican Party but accepted their brief as an amici curiae brief. View "State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose" on Justia Law

The State of New York, through its Attorney General, sued the Niagara-Wheatfield Central School District, alleging that school officials failed to address repeated complaints of student-on-student sexual assault, harassment, and gender-based violence and bullying. The complaint detailed incidents involving four students who suffered from such misconduct and claimed that the school district ignored at least thirty similar incidents. The State argued that the school district's inaction affected not only the victims but also the broader school community, creating an unsafe environment.The United States District Court for the Western District of New York dismissed the case, concluding that the State lacked parens patriae standing. The court reasoned that the incidents were factually distinct and did not demonstrate a broader policy or practice of discrimination by the school district. Without such a policy or practice, the court held that the State could not show that the school district's conduct affected a substantial segment of the population, which is required for parens patriae standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that showing an injurious policy or practice is not necessary to satisfy the substantial-segment prong of the parens patriae standard. The court concluded that the State of New York had met its burden of pleading parens patriae standing at this stage of the litigation. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "New York v. Niagara-Wheatfield Central School District" on Justia Law

Markisha Lattimore obtained a judgment exceeding $20 million against Kim Brothers Kickin’ Kids, LLC. Instead of collecting directly from Kickin’ Kids, Lattimore initiated garnishment actions against twelve financial services companies, including RBC Global Asset Management (U.S.), Inc. (Global), using a garnishment summons form for financial institutions. Global, a registered investment advisor, did not respond to the summons, leading Lattimore to move for a garnishment default judgment for the full amount. Global claimed it did not receive the motion and did not respond. The State Court of Fulton County entered a default judgment against Global.The State Court of Fulton County denied Global’s motion to set aside the default judgment. The court ruled that Global was a financial institution, that Lattimore used the correct summons form, and that Global waived any defect in the form used. Global argued that it was not a financial institution as defined by the statute and that the incorrect summons form invalidated the garnishment action, thus failing to establish personal jurisdiction. The court also ruled that Global could not challenge the constitutionality of the default judgment in its motion to set aside.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and reversed the lower court’s decision. The court held that Global, as a registered investment advisor, did not meet the statutory definition of a financial institution. Therefore, Lattimore used the wrong summons form, rendering the garnishment invalid and failing to obtain personal jurisdiction over Global. The court concluded that the State Court of Fulton County abused its discretion in denying Global’s motion to set aside the default judgment. The judgment was reversed. View "RBC GLOBAL ASSET MANAGEMENT (U.S.) INC. v. LATTIMORE" on Justia Law