Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A 17-year-old, M.L., challenged a civil harassment restraining order issued to protect E.G., a former romantic partner of M.L.’s mother. E.G. sought the order after M.L. posted E.G.’s personal information on social media, alleging E.G. supported M.L.’s mother in abusive conduct against M.L. and her younger brother. The restraining order prohibited M.L. from publishing E.G.’s contact information online and from defaming or harassing her. M.L. contended there was no clear and convincing evidence of harassment and argued that the trial court failed to consider circumstances making future harassment unlikely.The Santa Cruz County Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order and later a three-year civil harassment restraining order against M.L. The court found that M.L.’s social media posts, which included E.G.’s contact information and accusations of supporting child abuse, constituted harassment. The court concluded that E.G. had met her burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence and that the harassment was likely to continue without a restraining order.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found substantial evidence supporting the restraining order, including M.L.’s repeated social media posts and the resulting threats and harassment E.G. received from third parties. The court concluded that M.L.’s conduct was not for a legitimate purpose and was not constitutionally protected. However, the court modified the restraining order to expire on M.L.’s 18th birthday, reasoning that the circumstances leading to the harassment were tied to M.L.’s status as a minor and her parents' custody dispute. The order was affirmed as modified. View "E.G. v. M.L." on Justia Law

Timothy Hall participated in a protest in Detroit, where he was tackled and injured by a City of Detroit officer. Later, another officer ticketed him for disorderly conduct. Hall filed two lawsuits: one against the City of Detroit and another against the officers, claiming retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. The district court consolidated the suits, denied Hall’s request to extend the discovery period, granted summary judgment to the City, but denied the ticketing officer’s claim of qualified immunity.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Detroit, dismissing Hall’s claims against the City. However, the court denied the ticketing officer’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity, allowing Hall’s First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed. Hall appealed the denial of his motion to extend the discovery period and the summary judgment in favor of the City, while the ticketing officer appealed the denial of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Hall’s motion to extend the discovery period and the grant of summary judgment to the City. However, the appellate court reversed the district court’s decision denying the ticketing officer’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. The court held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that issuing a ticket under the circumstances violated Hall’s First Amendment rights. The court emphasized that the officer acted on plausible instructions from a superior and had no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the order. View "Hall v. Navarre" on Justia Law

The case involves eight multiemployer benefit plans (the "Funds") seeking to recover delinquent contributions from Stromberg Metal Works, Inc. for health, pension, and other benefits for sheet metal workers. The Funds allege that Stromberg underpaid contributions owed under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Union (SMART Union) by hiring temporary workers through staffing agencies without making the required contributions.Initially filed in the Middle District of Tennessee, the case was transferred to the Eastern District of North Carolina. The district court denied Stromberg’s motion for summary judgment, granted the Funds’ cross-motion for summary judgment, and awarded the Funds over $823,000 in delinquent contributions and more than $430,000 in liquidated damages and interest. Stromberg appealed, challenging both the liability and damages rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s liability ruling, agreeing that the 2019 Settlement between Stromberg and Local 5 did not preclude the Funds from seeking delinquent contributions. The court emphasized that multiemployer benefit plans have distinct interests from local unions and are not bound by settlements to which they are not parties.However, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s damages ruling. The appellate court concluded that while the Funds could rely on the CBA’s default staffing ratio to approximate damages due to Stromberg’s failure to maintain adequate records, Stromberg had presented sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the accuracy of the Funds’ damages calculation. The case was remanded for further proceedings to address the disputed damages issue. View "Sheet Metal Workers' Health & Welfare Fund of North Carolina v. Stromberg Metal Works, Inc." on Justia Law

Aletha Porcaro was admitted to The Heights of Summerlin, a skilled nursing facility, for rehabilitation after surgery. Upon her discharge, she contracted COVID-19 and died eight days later. Her daughter, Rachelle Crupi, filed a lawsuit against The Heights and its parent companies, alleging that they failed to implement effective COVID-19 safety protocols. The claims included negligence, wrongful death, and other related causes of action.The Heights removed the case to federal court, which remanded it back to state court. In state court, The Heights moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) and Nevada’s Emergency Directive 011 granted them immunity from Crupi’s claims. The district court dismissed the professional negligence claim but allowed the other claims to proceed.The Heights then petitioned the Supreme Court of Nevada for a writ of mandamus, seeking to dismiss the remaining claims based on the same immunity arguments. The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the petition and concluded that the PREP Act does not apply to a lack of action or failure to implement COVID-19 policies. The court also determined that Directive 011 does not grant immunity to health care facilities, as it applies to individual medical professionals, not facilities.The Supreme Court of Nevada denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that neither the PREP Act nor Directive 011 provided immunity to The Heights for the claims brought by Crupi. The court affirmed the district court’s decision to allow the remaining claims to proceed. View "The Heights of Summerlin, LLC v. District Court" on Justia Law

In 1983, an Arkansas rural electric distribution cooperative, Carroll Electric, entered into a lease agreement with the City of Berryville and constructed a telecommunications tower. In 1994, Carroll Electric subleased the tower to Northwest Arkansas RSA Limited Partnership, allowing them to install and maintain radio communications equipment. The sublease was renewed multiple times, and in 2011, a Second Amendment was added, extending the agreement for additional terms unless terminated with six months' notice. In 2015, Northwest Arkansas was dissolved, and Alltel Corporation became its successor. In 2022, Alltel notified Carroll Electric of its intent to terminate the agreement, effective October 2022.Carroll Electric filed a breach of contract lawsuit in Arkansas state court, alleging wrongful termination. Alltel removed the case to the Western District of Arkansas, citing diversity jurisdiction. The district court granted Alltel's motion to dismiss, concluding that the contract unambiguously allowed Alltel to terminate the agreement. The court also awarded attorney’s fees to Alltel as the prevailing party under Arkansas law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the contract provisions were unambiguous and did not conflict. The court held that Section 8(c) of the initial sublease allowed termination with six months' notice, while the Second Amendment dealt with automatic renewal, not termination. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Carroll Electric Cooperative v. Alltel Corporation" on Justia Law

Tijuana Decoster, an African American, served as the Chief Grants Management Officer for the National Institute of Neurological Disorders & Stroke at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Her working relationship with her supervisor, Robert Finkelstein, deteriorated in 2019, leading to allegations of racial discrimination. Decoster claimed Finkelstein singled her out, treated her with contempt, and threatened to fire her. She was issued a Letter of Expectation and placed on an Opportunity to Demonstrate Acceptable Performance plan. Despite her complaints to Human Resources and Finkelstein, the alleged harassment continued, leading Decoster to retire in February 2020.Decoster filed a formal discrimination complaint with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in December 2019, alleging harassment, discrimination based on race, and retaliation. NIH's Final Agency Decision in November 2020 found that Decoster was subjected to retaliation but denied her other claims. Decoster then filed a complaint in the District of Maryland, raising three claims under Title VII: hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation. The district court dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of Decoster’s hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims, finding that her allegations did not establish severe or pervasive conduct or intolerable working conditions. However, the court reversed the dismissal of her retaliation claim, holding that Decoster had sufficiently stated a plausible claim of retaliation under Title VII. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the retaliation claim. View "Decoster v. Becerra" on Justia Law

Provisur Technologies, Inc. owns patents related to food-processing machinery, specifically high-speed mechanical slicers and a fill and packaging apparatus. Provisur sued Weber, Inc. and its affiliates, alleging that Weber's food slicers and SmartLoader products infringed on these patents. The case was tried before a jury, which found that Weber willfully infringed several claims of Provisur's patents and awarded Provisur approximately $10.5 million in damages.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied Weber's motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on noninfringement and willfulness, as well as a motion for a new trial on infringement, willfulness, and damages. Weber appealed these decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of JMOL for noninfringement regarding the '812 and '436 patents, as Weber conceded its noninfringement arguments were no longer available due to an intervening decision. However, the court reversed the district court's denial of JMOL for noninfringement of the '936 patent, finding that Provisur failed to provide sufficient evidence that Weber's SmartLoader could be readily configured to infringe the patent.The court also reversed the district court's denial of JMOL on willfulness, ruling that the evidence presented, including testimony about Weber's failure to consult a third party, was insufficient to establish willful infringement. Additionally, the court found that the district court abused its discretion in allowing Provisur to use the entire market value rule for calculating damages without sufficient evidence that the patented features drove customer demand for the entire slicing line. Consequently, the court reversed the denial of a new trial on damages.The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Federal Circuit's decision. View "PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. WEBER, INC. " on Justia Law

The City of Chicago’s Department of Water Management hired Tinka Vassileva as a Filtration Engineer (FE) in 2001. Vassileva, who started as an FE II, was promoted to FE III in July 2019. She applied unsuccessfully for promotions to FE V in April 2018 and FE IV in July 2019. Vassileva claimed that the City’s decisions not to interview her for these positions were based on age, gender, national origin, and retaliation for previous discrimination charges she filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the City on all claims. The court found that Vassileva did not provide sufficient evidence that her age, gender, national origin, or EEOC charges motivated the City’s decision not to interview her for the 2018 FE V position. Additionally, the court concluded that Vassileva had not administratively exhausted her claims related to the 2019 FE IV openings, as she failed to file an EEOC charge based on the City’s 2019 actions before filing the lawsuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Vassileva did not present evidence suggesting that the City’s explanation for not interviewing her in 2018 was pretext for discrimination or retaliation. The court also noted that Vassileva failed to show that the decision-maker was aware of her EEOC charges. Regarding the 2019 claims, the court found that Vassileva waived her argument about administrative exhaustion by not addressing it until oral argument. Thus, the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the City. View "Vassileva v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

A motor vehicle collision occurred in Sussex County, Delaware, involving Joanne Dudsak, a New Jersey resident insured by New Jersey Manufacturers (NJM), and Christopher Koester, a Maryland resident insured by Allstate Insurance Company. NJM paid Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits to Dudsak and sought inter-company arbitration in Delaware to recover these costs. Allstate opposed, arguing that NJM's policy, being from New Jersey, did not qualify for arbitration under Delaware law, which requires the vehicle to be registered in Delaware for PIP subrogation rights.The arbitrator ruled in favor of NJM, awarding the full amount and rejecting Allstate's jurisdictional challenge. Allstate then filed a Petition to Vacate the Arbitration Award in the Delaware Chancery Court, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his authority. NJM moved to dismiss the petition, claiming the issue was moot because Allstate had agreed to tender its policy limits, which would extinguish NJM's subrogation rights under Delaware law.The Delaware Chancery Court denied NJM's Motion to Dismiss, finding that a real dispute remained. The court then addressed the merits of Allstate's Motion for Summary Judgment. The court applied the standard of review under 10 Del. C. §5714(a)(5), which allows vacating an arbitration award if the arbitrated claim was barred by limitation and the objection was raised from the outset. The court found that §2118 of the Delaware PIP statute applies only to vehicles required to be registered in Delaware and does not cover out-of-state policies like NJM's. Consequently, the arbitrator exceeded his authority by accepting jurisdiction over the case. The court granted Allstate's Motion for Summary Judgment, vacating the arbitration award. View "Allstate Insurance Co. v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co." on Justia Law

A Californian plaintiff purchased several bottles of Banana Boat sunscreen between 2017 and 2020, including Ultra Sport SPF 100, SPF 50, and SPF 30. She later discovered that the SPF 50 bottle contained 0.29 parts per million (ppm) of benzene, a known carcinogen. She alleged that the products were falsely advertised as safe and that the presence of benzene was not disclosed on the labels. The plaintiff claimed she would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less for them, had she known about the benzene contamination.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for lack of Article III standing, concluding that she did not demonstrate a non-speculative increased health risk or actual economic harm. The court relied on FDA guidelines permitting up to 2 ppm of benzene in sunscreen, determining that the plaintiff’s allegations did not establish that 0.29 ppm of benzene posed a credible risk of harm or economic injury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the district court erred by resolving disputed facts in favor of the defendants and prematurely addressing merits issues intertwined with the jurisdictional question of standing. The Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiff adequately established an injury in fact for purposes of Article III standing, as she alleged economic harm from purchasing a product she would not have bought, or would have paid less for, absent the defendants’ misrepresentations. The court also determined that the plaintiff met the causation and redressability elements of standing, as her injury was likely caused by the defendants' alleged misrepresentations and could be redressed by judicial relief. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "BOWEN V. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC." on Justia Law