Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In this case, an automobile collision occurred on November 5, 2018, involving Raymond and Florence Trigger, who were struck by a truck driven by Benjamin C. Deese. Florence died at the scene, and Raymond succumbed to his injuries in January 2019. Jerald Brown, as the administrator of both estates, sued Deese for wrongful death, alleging negligence and wantonness. The jury awarded $50,000 for Florence's death and $1 for Raymond's death. Brown moved for a new trial, arguing that the $1 award was inadequate and violated equal protection principles. The Houston Circuit Court granted the motion for a new trial, and Deese appealed.The Houston Circuit Court had initially instructed the jury on negligence, wantonness, contributory negligence, and damages, including nominal damages. The jury's initial verdict awarded $0 for Raymond's death, which the court rejected, instructing the jury that a $0 award was not permissible. The jury then awarded $1 for Raymond's death. Brown's motion for a new trial argued that the $1 award was inadequate and inconsistent with the $50,000 award for Florence's death. The trial court granted the motion without stating reasons.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and reversed the trial court's order. The Court held that the adequacy of punitive damages in wrongful-death cases is not subject to review, as established in Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Street. The Court also found that the jury's verdicts were not inconsistent, as the jury was instructed, without objection, that it could award different amounts for each death. The Court concluded that the trial court exceeded its discretion in granting a new trial and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment on the jury's verdicts. View "Deese v. Brown" on Justia Law

Michael Hermalyn, a former employee of DraftKings, left his position to join a rival company, Fanatics, based in California. DraftKings, headquartered in Massachusetts, claimed that Hermalyn's new role violated a noncompete agreement he had signed, which included a Massachusetts choice-of-law provision and a one-year noncompete clause. DraftKings sued Hermalyn in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for breach of the noncompete agreement.The district court sided with DraftKings, applying Massachusetts law to determine the enforceability of the noncompete agreement. The court found the noncompete enforceable and issued a preliminary injunction preventing Hermalyn from competing against DraftKings in the United States for one year. Hermalyn appealed, arguing that California law, which generally bans noncompetes, should apply instead of Massachusetts law. Alternatively, he argued that if Massachusetts law applied, the injunction should exclude California.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court examined whether the district judge abused her discretion in granting the preliminary injunction and whether she made any legal errors in applying Massachusetts law. The appellate court found that Massachusetts law was correctly applied, noting that Massachusetts generally respects choice-of-law provisions unless they violate a fundamental policy of another state with a materially greater interest. The court concluded that Hermalyn failed to demonstrate that California's interest in banning noncompetes was materially greater than Massachusetts's interest in enforcing them.The First Circuit also upheld the scope of the preliminary injunction, rejecting Hermalyn's argument to exclude California. The court reasoned that excluding California would undermine the effectiveness of the injunction, as Hermalyn's role involved interacting with clients in states where online sports betting is legal. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision and awarded costs to DraftKings. View "DraftKings Inc. v. Hermalyn" on Justia Law

A lawyer representing an environmental group sought disability accommodations under California Rule of Court 1.100 due to his bipolar disorder. The accommodations requested included extensions of time for briefing deadlines and relief from procedural obligations in a case challenging the approval of a timber harvest plan by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE). The trial court had previously granted six similar requests over eight months but denied the seventh request, leading to this appeal.The Sonoma County Superior Court had partially granted the environmental group's petition for a writ of mandate, finding deficiencies in CalFIRE's approval of the timber harvest plan regarding geologic, biologic, and cultural resources. However, the court rejected the group's claim that CalFIRE's delayed and incomplete response to public comments rendered the approval defective. Dissatisfied with this partial victory, the group appealed, arguing that the trial court's denial of the seventh accommodation request prevented a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case and upheld the trial court's decision. The appellate court found that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the seventh request for accommodation. The court noted that the trial court had already granted multiple extensions and that further delays would create an undue burden and fundamentally alter the nature of the expedited California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) proceeding. The appellate court emphasized that the environmental group had the option to retain additional counsel to avoid further delays, which it failed to do. The judgment was affirmed, and the respondents were awarded their costs on appeal. View "Friends of the So. Fork Gualala v. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection" on Justia Law

In this case, the Courier Journal requested multiple public records from the Shively Police Department (SPD) under the Open Records Act, following a fatal car crash involving a police chase. The requested records included dispatch reports, 911 calls, audio communications, dashcam and bodycam footage, and incident reports. SPD denied the request, citing the "law enforcement exemption" under KRS 61.878(1)(h), arguing that the records pertained to an ongoing criminal case and their release would harm the investigation.The Jefferson Circuit Court initially ruled in favor of SPD, granting summary judgment on the basis that the law enforcement exemption applied. The court found that SPD had met its burden of proof under the exemption, and thus, the records were exempt from disclosure. The Courier Journal appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals.The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's decision, holding that SPD had not sufficiently demonstrated that the records were exempt under the law enforcement exemption, the personal privacy exemption, or KRS 17.150(2). The appellate court vacated the summary judgment in favor of SPD and remanded the case for further proceedings, recommending an in camera review of the requested records.The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that SPD failed to provide a concrete risk of harm associated with the release of the records, as required by the law enforcement exemption. The court also clarified that KRS 17.150(2) governs the disclosure of records post-prosecution and does not override the harm requirement of the law enforcement exemption. Additionally, the court found that SPD did not adequately justify withholding the records under the personal privacy exemption. The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "SHIVELY POLICE DEPARTMENT V. COURIER JOURNAL, INC." on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Dakota Miller, was injured when a vehicle crashed into a business he was patronizing, located on property owned by T & J Land Co., LLC. Miller filed a lawsuit against T & J Land nearly two years after the incident, alleging negligence and seeking punitive damages. He claimed the property owner failed to protect patrons from such accidents.The Knox Circuit Court dismissed Miller's lawsuit, ruling it was untimely under the one-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims as per Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 413.140(1)(a). The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the two-year statute of limitations under the Motor Vehicle Reparations Act (MVRA) applied, as Miller was a victim of a motor vehicle accident.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court held that the MVRA's two-year statute of limitations did not apply to Miller's premises liability claim against T & J Land. The Court reasoned that the MVRA is intended for claims involving the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of motor vehicles, which was not the nature of Miller's claim. The Court emphasized that Miller's lawsuit was fundamentally about premises liability, not a motor vehicle accident, and thus fell under the one-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reinstated the Knox Circuit Court's order of dismissal, concluding that Miller's claims were indeed time-barred under the applicable one-year statute of limitations. View "T & J LAND CO., LLC V. MILLER" on Justia Law

Karen Richardson obtained a loan in 2008, secured by a promissory note and a deed of trust on her home. After a series of transfers, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC became the holder and servicer of the note. Nationstar appointed members of McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC (MWC) as substitute trustees. In 2015, Nationstar filed for judicial foreclosure, alleging Richardson defaulted on her mortgage. Richardson counterclaimed, challenging Nationstar's standing and alleging violations of lending laws. The Superior Court ruled in favor of Nationstar, and the property was sold in a foreclosure sale.Richardson opposed the ratification of the sale, arguing that Nationstar and MWC provided an incorrect payoff amount, constituting fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. The Superior Court ratified the sale, concluding that Richardson's right to cure the default had expired before the incorrect payoff amount was provided. Richardson's subsequent appeals were dismissed as moot.Richardson then filed a new suit against Nationstar, MWC, and the trustees, alleging wrongful foreclosure, fraud, and misrepresentation. The Superior Court dismissed her claims against Nationstar and others as barred by res judicata, but held her claims against MWC and the trustees in abeyance. Richardson amended her complaint, and the Superior Court dismissed it again on res judicata grounds, believing she had not disputed privity.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and reversed the Superior Court's dismissal on the issue of privity. The court held that MWC and the trustees had not sufficiently demonstrated privity with Nationstar to invoke res judicata. The case was remanded for further proceedings to address the privity issue and any other unresolved claims. View "Richardson v. McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC" on Justia Law

A woman named Lisa was under a conservatorship due to being gravely disabled from a mental disorder. Her father, Scott, was appointed as her conservator and placed her in a skilled nursing facility. Scott signed two optional arbitration agreements with the facility on Lisa's behalf. After Lisa died, her parents sued the facility's owners and operators, alleging various claims including wrongful death. The defendants sought to compel arbitration based on the agreements Scott signed.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the petition to compel arbitration. The court found no evidence that Scott had the authority to bind Lisa to the arbitration agreements for the successor claims. Additionally, the court found that neither Scott nor Lisa's mother, Marilyn, signed the agreements in their individual capacities, thus the wrongful death claim was not subject to arbitration.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the conservatorship order did not give Scott the authority to sign the arbitration agreements on Lisa's behalf. The court reasoned that the conservatorship order did not explicitly or implicitly authorize Scott to waive Lisa's right to a jury trial. Furthermore, the court found that the wrongful death claim was not subject to arbitration because Scott did not sign the agreements in his individual capacity, and Marilyn did not sign them at all. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, denying the petition to compel arbitration. View "Enmark v. KC Community Care" on Justia Law

José Santana De la Rosa and José Algarín Pabón filed a lawsuit against Edwin Santana De la Rosa, alleging abuse of process under Puerto Rico law. They claimed that Edwin, who had sued them in Puerto Rico over financial dealings, had changed his domicile to New York after Hurricane Maria in 2017, thus establishing diversity jurisdiction for their federal case. Edwin moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting he was still domiciled in Puerto Rico. The district court ordered jurisdictional discovery, which revealed Edwin's significant ties to both Puerto Rico and New York.The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico found that although Edwin spent considerable time in New York after the hurricane, José and Algarín failed to prove that Edwin intended to remain there indefinitely. The court noted Edwin's continued ties to Puerto Rico, including his Puerto Rico address on tax returns, a Puerto Rico driver's license, and voter registration. Consequently, the district court granted Edwin's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court did not clearly err in its determination that Edwin did not intend to change his domicile to New York. The court emphasized that Edwin's continued ties to Puerto Rico, such as his tax filings, driver's license, and voter registration, supported the district court's conclusion. The appellate court also declined José and Algarín's request for an evidentiary hearing, noting that they had not timely requested it during the lower court proceedings. View "Santana de la Rosa v. Santana de la Rosa" on Justia Law

In this case, Georgia voters challenged the qualifications of presidential electors certified by two independent candidates for President, Dr. Cornel West and Claudia De la Cruz. The challengers argued that these electors were required to file nomination petitions signed by a number of qualified Georgia voters to have their candidates placed on the ballot. Since none of the electors filed such petitions, the challengers contended that the independent candidates should not appear on the ballot for the November 2024 General Election.The Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially agreed with the challengers, concluding that the electors had not met the qualification requirements under Georgia’s Election Code. However, the Secretary of State overruled the ALJ’s decisions, determining that the electors had qualified under Georgia law. Subsequently, two different superior court judges reversed the Secretary’s decisions, agreeing with the ALJ that the electors had not filed the necessary nomination petitions and thus had not qualified to place their candidates on the ballot.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and held that each presidential elector for an independent candidate is required to file a nomination petition in their own name under OCGA § 21-2-132 (e). The Court found that since no electors for West or De la Cruz had filed such petitions, they had not qualified as candidates for presidential elector. Consequently, the Court affirmed the superior courts' decisions, which concluded that neither West’s nor De la Cruz’s electors satisfied the statutory requirements for their candidates to appear on Georgia’s ballot for President.The Court also addressed procedural issues, including the dismissal of the Georgia Republican Party’s appeal due to lack of party status in the lower court and the denial of a motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party. The Court affirmed the superior court’s orders regarding the remedies, including the posting of notices at polling places to inform voters of the disqualification of the candidates. View "Al-Bari v. Pigg" on Justia Law

Officer Blayne Newton of the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department shot and killed Donnie Sanders during a traffic stop. Sanders’s children, Latetia Nunley and Zahleyiah Fielder, filed a lawsuit against Officer Newton under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of Sanders’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. Officer Newton sought summary judgment based on qualified immunity, which the district court denied, citing genuine issues of material fact. Officer Newton appealed the denial of qualified immunity.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied Officer Newton’s motion for summary judgment, finding that there were disputed facts essential to the analysis of the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the threats made by Sanders and his level of compliance with commands. The court highlighted discrepancies between Officer Newton’s testimony and the forensic evidence from the autopsy, which suggested that Sanders was shot in a manner inconsistent with Newton’s account of Sanders pointing something at him.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Officer Newton argued that the district court erred in denying him qualified immunity and that the excessive-force claim was barred under the Eleventh Amendment. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating that it could not resolve genuine disputes of material fact in favor of the party seeking summary judgment. The court emphasized that the factual record was unsettled and disputed, preventing it from determining whether Newton’s actions were objectively reasonable or whether they violated clearly established law. The court concluded that the district court’s finding of a material factual dispute precluded it from granting qualified immunity at this stage. View "Nunley v. Newton" on Justia Law