Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Appellant Charles E. Wilson filed a lawsuit against the District of Columbia Board of Elections, Mayor Muriel E. Bowser, and the District of Columbia, challenging the proposed ballot Initiative 83, also known as the “Make All Votes Count Act of 2024.” Wilson objected to the initiative’s summary statement, short title, and legislative form, and raised several challenges to the Board’s determination that the initiative was a “proper subject” for an initiative. The initiative, which proposed ranked-choice voting and changes to primary election rules, was approved by voters on November 5, 2024.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia dismissed Wilson’s complaint, ruling it was untimely because it was filed the day before the ten-day period described in D.C. Code § 1-1001.16(e)(1)(A) began. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the complaint was not filed within the specified timeframe.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and concluded that the ten-day period described in Subsection (e)(1)(A) is a claim-processing rule rather than a jurisdictional rule. The court determined that the ten-day period is a deadline by which any suit must be filed, rather than a time window during which a suit must be brought. The court also held that the Superior Court had general equity jurisdiction to hear Wilson’s substantive challenges to the Board’s “proper subject” determination. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claims against the Mayor and the District of Columbia, as they were not proper defendants in this case.The Court of Appeals vacated the Superior Court’s order dismissing the complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings to address Wilson’s claims against the Board of Elections. View "Wilson v. Bowser" on Justia Law

Scott and Karen Larsen purchased two adjoining lots in the McGuiness Tracts subdivision in the late 1980s, intending to build a house and retire there. Keith and Danielle Sayers, who bought a lot in the same subdivision in 2012 and another adjoining lot in 2016 or 2017, built a freestyle motocross course on their properties. The Larsens, disturbed by the noise and dust from the motocross activities, sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Sayerses, which was ignored. Consequently, the Larsens filed a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief for breach of restrictive covenant, nuisance, and trespass. The Sayerses counterclaimed for intentional infliction of emotional distress.The Second Judicial District Court held a bench trial and ruled that the Sayerses' motocross activities did not violate the restrictive covenants of the subdivision, denying the Larsens' claims for injunctive relief and nuisance. However, the court granted the Larsens' request to enjoin Keith from hitting golf balls onto their property. The court also denied the Sayerses' counterclaim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Larsens' motion for attorney’s fees was not ruled upon by the District Court.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and concluded that the Sayerses' freestyle motocross course constitutes a breach of the restrictive covenants limiting the use of the property to residential or agricultural purposes. The court reversed the District Court's ruling on this basis and remanded the case for the District Court to award the Larsens reasonable attorney’s fees as the prevailing party. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's determination that Keith's ramp-building activities did not violate the covenants' restriction against commercial activity. View "Larsen v. Sayers" on Justia Law

A developer purchased a historical property in Newton, Massachusetts, and began restoration work. The Newton Historical Commission issued a stop-work order, claiming the developer violated the permit by demolishing large portions of the building. The developer, 29 Greenwood, LLC, disagreed but complied with the order and submitted revised proposals, all of which were denied. The developer then filed a lawsuit, alleging a violation of the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution and state law.The case was initially filed in state court but was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The district court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the dispute was a typical zoning issue not rising to the level of a constitutional taking. The developer appealed the dismissal, arguing that the Commission acted in bad faith and would never permit the reconstruction.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that two related actions were pending in state court, which could potentially resolve or narrow the federal constitutional issues. The court decided to abstain from ruling on the federal issues until the state court proceedings concluded, invoking the Pullman abstention doctrine. The court vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded the case with instructions to stay the federal proceedings pending the outcome of the state court cases. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. View "29 Greenwood, LLC v. City of Newton" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a Maryland LLC and a Missouri nonprofit corporation, alleged that the Maryland State Board of Elections mismanaged state electoral operations in violation of state and federal laws during the 2020 and 2022 general elections. They claimed inaccuracies in voter registration records, excessive error rates in voting systems, improper certification of voting machines, use of uncertified machines, and failure to provide requested audit logs and configuration reports. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including the appointment of a Special Master to supervise changes before the November 2024 election.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the plaintiffs had not alleged injuries sufficiently concrete and particularized to support Article III standing. The court found that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the requirements for organizational standing, as they failed to allege any injury to their organizational activities or to their members that was concrete and particularized. The court also held that the alleged violations of the Maryland Public Information Act did not constitute a redressable injury in fact.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs lacked representational standing to assert claims on behalf of their individual members. The court found that the alleged vote dilution and the possibility that members' ballots were cast blank were generalized grievances that did not constitute concrete, particularized injuries. Additionally, the court held that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that any of their members made the public records requests, thus failing to establish standing for the alleged violations of the Maryland Public Information Act. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint and the denial of the motion for injunctive relief as moot. View "Maryland Election Integrity, LLC v. Maryland State Board of Elections" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of charter-boat operators and trade associations in Maryland, sued the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to enjoin the Commission’s striped-bass plan. The Commission, formed in 1942, recommends fishery management plans to its member states. Plaintiffs argued that the plan, which included a one-fish limit for charter boats, would significantly harm their businesses. They sought an injunction to prevent the implementation of the plan.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that Plaintiffs likely lacked standing because they were regulated by Maryland, not the Commission. The court noted that even if the Commission’s plan were enjoined, it was unlikely that Maryland would rescind its own regulations, which were stricter than the Commission’s recommendations. The court also found that Plaintiffs did not plausibly state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the Commission is not a “person” under the statute and does not act under “color of state law.”The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that Plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The court held that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that Maryland would likely rescind its regulations if the Commission’s plan were enjoined. The court emphasized that Maryland voluntarily adopted the regulations and had the authority to impose stricter measures than those recommended by the Commission. As a result, the court vacated the district court’s order denying the preliminary injunction and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "Delmarva Fisheries Association, Inc. v. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission" on Justia Law

In June 2015, Dylann Roof shot and killed nine people at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, including M.P.'s father, Reverend Clementa Pinckney. M.P., a minor, filed a lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook, Inc.) and its subsidiaries, alleging that Facebook's algorithm recommended harmful content that radicalized Roof, leading to the murders. M.P. asserted claims of strict products liability, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress under South Carolina law, as well as a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) for conspiracy to deprive her of her civil rights.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina dismissed M.P.'s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), concluding that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred her state law tort claims. The court also found that M.P. failed to plausibly allege a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that M.P.'s state law tort claims were barred by Section 230 because they sought to hold Facebook liable as a publisher of third-party content. The court also determined that M.P. failed to plausibly allege proximate causation under South Carolina law, as her complaint did not provide sufficient factual foundation linking Roof's Facebook use to his crimes. Additionally, the court found that M.P. forfeited her challenge to the dismissal of her Section 1985 claim by not adequately addressing it in her appellate brief. The court also concluded that any potential claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 was barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment granting Facebook's motion to dismiss. View "M.P. v. Meta Platforms Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, D.T., alleged that he was sexually abused by Michael J. McCarthy, a priest assigned by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, during an overnight trip to a private home in New Jersey in 1971. D.T. claimed that McCarthy, who was a family friend and mentor, used his position as a priest to gain the trust of D.T.'s mother and take him on the trip where the abuse occurred. The Archdiocese, which operates in Pennsylvania, argued that it did not own property or conduct business in New Jersey at the time of the alleged incident.The trial court granted the Archdiocese's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Appellate Division twice remanded the case for jurisdictional discovery and consideration of the Archdiocese's past ownership of property in New Jersey. After the second remand, the trial court again granted the motion to dismiss, and the Appellate Division affirmed, finding no basis for personal jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that D.T. had not demonstrated that the Archdiocese's supervisory authority over McCarthy established the minimum contacts with New Jersey necessary to exercise specific jurisdiction under Fourteenth Amendment due process principles. The Court found that the Archdiocese did not purposefully avail itself of conducting activities in New Jersey and that McCarthy's actions were not directed by the Archdiocese. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division's judgment, concluding that there was no basis for New Jersey to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Archdiocese in this case. View "D.T. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

Pie Development, L.L.C. was formed to develop an application to streamline the process of purchasing workers compensation insurance. The company alleged that Dax Craig, a consultant, stole the idea and shared it with John Swigart. Craig and Swigart then used the idea to create Pie Insurance Holdings, Inc. and other affiliated entities, generating significant profits. Pie Development sued Craig, Swigart, Pie Insurance Holdings, and Pie Insurance Services, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets under the Mississippi Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA) and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), among other claims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed the complaint for failing to provide sufficient detail on each claim, but allowed Pie Development to amend its complaint within thirty days. Pie Development chose not to amend and instead appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, noting that Pie Development did not sufficiently plead that it took reasonable measures to protect its business plan's secrecy.While the appeal was pending, Pie Development filed a new lawsuit against additional defendants, including Pie Carrier Holdings, Gallatin Point Capital, Sirius Point Ltd., and Pie Casualty Insurance Company, and later added the original defendants. The district court dismissed the new claims, citing res judicata, as the claims were identical to those in the first lawsuit. Pie Development appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that res judicata applied because the prior action was concluded by a final judgment on the merits when Pie Development chose to appeal rather than amend its complaint. The court also found that Pie Development failed to state a claim against Gallatin and Sirius, as the complaint did not plausibly allege that they knew or should have known about the misappropriation of trade secrets. View "Pie Development v. Pie Carr Holdings" on Justia Law

The case involves three consolidated appeals concerning the constitutionality of the Child Victims Act of 2023, which retroactively eliminated the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse claims. The plaintiffs, who are alleged survivors of childhood sexual abuse, filed lawsuits against various institutions, including the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington, the Board of Education of Harford County, and The Key School, Inc. The defendants argued that the 2023 Act unconstitutionally abrogated their vested rights by reviving claims that were previously time-barred.In the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, the court denied the Archbishop’s motion to dismiss, determining that the relevant statute was a statute of limitations, not a statute of repose, and thus did not create vested rights. The Circuit Court for Harford County reached a similar conclusion regarding the Board of Education of Harford County. In the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the court certified the question of the 2023 Act’s constitutionality to the Supreme Court of Maryland without ruling on The Key School’s motion to dismiss.The Supreme Court of Maryland held that the 2017 statute, which the 2023 Act amended, was a statute of limitations rather than a statute of repose. The court reasoned that the statute of limitations is a procedural device that does not create vested rights, whereas a statute of repose creates substantive rights that cannot be retroactively abrogated. The court concluded that the 2023 Act did not retroactively abrogate vested rights and was constitutional as applied to the defendants. The court applied heightened rational basis review and found that the 2023 Act bore a real and substantial relation to addressing the problem of delayed reporting of child sexual abuse and the need for justice for survivors. The judgments of the lower courts were affirmed, and the certified question was answered in the negative. View "Archbishop of Washington v. Doe" on Justia Law

Kristin Casey, a former employee of D.R. Horton, Inc., filed a lawsuit against the company and one of its employees, Kris Hansen, alleging sexual harassment and other claims. D.R. Horton moved to compel arbitration based on an employment agreement that included an arbitration clause governed by California law. Casey opposed the motion, citing the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), which allows plaintiffs to invalidate arbitration agreements in cases involving sexual harassment. The trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the EFAA was inapplicable due to the choice-of-law provision in the employment agreement.The Contra Costa County Superior Court initially reviewed the case and granted the motion to compel arbitration, accepting Hansen's joinder. The court concluded that the choice-of-law provision in the employment agreement meant that California law, not the EFAA, applied. Casey then filed a petition for a writ of mandate to challenge this decision.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that the EFAA preempts state law attempts to compel arbitration in cases related to sexual harassment disputes. The court determined that the EFAA applies to the parties' transaction because it sufficiently involved interstate commerce. The court also concluded that the EFAA's rule of unenforceability of arbitration agreements in sexual harassment cases preempts the state law and that parties cannot contract around the EFAA through a choice-of-law provision. Consequently, the court granted Casey's petition and directed the trial court to vacate its order compelling arbitration and to enter a new order denying the motion. View "Casey v. Superior Court" on Justia Law