Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Karen Carter filed a lawsuit against DTN Management Company after she slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk at her apartment complex on January 10, 2018. She alleged negligence and breach of statutory duties. Carter filed her complaint on April 13, 2021. DTN Management moved for summary disposition, arguing that the claim was time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The trial court agreed and granted the motion.The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that Administrative Order No. 2020-3, which extended certain filing deadlines during the COVID-19 state of emergency, was within the Michigan Supreme Court's authority. The appellate court found that the order excluded days from the computation of time under MCR 1.108, making Carter's filing timely. DTN Management appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.The Michigan Supreme Court held that Administrative Orders 2020-3 and 2020-18 were constitutional exercises of the Court's authority under Const 1963, art 6, §§ 4 and 5. The Court determined that these orders affected the computation of time rather than tolling the statute of limitations, which is within the Court's power to regulate practice and procedure. The Court concluded that Carter's lawsuit was timely filed, as the days during the state of emergency were not counted in the limitations period. Consequently, the trial court's grant of summary disposition was improper. The Court of Appeals judgment was affirmed, and the case was remanded to the Ingham Circuit Court for further proceedings. View "Carter V DTN Management Company" on Justia Law

Jane Doe, a minor, alleged that the Alpena Public School District and the Alpena Board of Education created a sexually hostile educational environment by failing to adequately respond to repeated unwanted sexual contact by another student, John Roe. Doe claimed this violated the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA). The defendants sought summary disposition, arguing that student-on-student harassment is not actionable under the ELCRA and that Doe failed to meet the elements of a hostile-environment claim.The Alpena Circuit Court granted the defendants' motion for summary disposition, agreeing that the ELCRA does not cover student-on-student harassment and that Doe did not establish a genuine issue of material fact. The Michigan Court of Appeals partially reversed, holding that the ELCRA could apply under the in loco parentis doctrine, but affirmed the summary disposition on the grounds that the defendants took appropriate remedial action.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the ELCRA does not provide a vicarious-liability cause of action against educational institutions for student-on-student sexual harassment. The Court found no statutory basis for applying the in loco parentis doctrine to impose vicarious liability on schools under the ELCRA. The Court reversed the part of the Court of Appeals' judgment that relied on vicarious liability and vacated the part affirming summary disposition. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to determine if the trial court correctly granted summary disposition under a direct liability theory and whether such a claim exists under the ELCRA. View "Doe V Alpena Public School District" on Justia Law

Irma Leibas, a correctional officer at the Cook County Department of Corrections (DOC), has pre-existing medical conditions requiring workplace accommodations, including up to three additional breaks per shift. After the DOC denied her request for these accommodations, Leibas sued, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois initially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Leibas’s accommodation and discrimination claims. However, upon reconsideration and after both parties supplemented the record, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that Leibas was not a qualified individual under the ADA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The appellate court examined whether Leibas could perform the essential functions of her position with or without reasonable accommodation. The court found that maintaining the safety and security of the DOC is an essential function of a correctional officer. Leibas’s requested accommodation of additional breaks, including rest periods, was deemed unreasonable given the unpredictable and violent environment of the DOC, which requires officers to be able to stand for long periods and respond to emergencies without delay. The court also noted that the DOC’s staffing shortages and the need for continuous coverage further complicated the feasibility of Leibas’s requested accommodations.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Leibas did not provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact that she could perform the essential functions of her position with the requested accommodations. View "Leibas v. Dart" on Justia Law

Marc Susselman received a traffic ticket from a Washtenaw County Sheriff’s deputy for failing to yield to a police cruiser with flashing lights. This ticket was later dismissed, but Susselman received another citation for failing to obey a police officer directing traffic. The Michigan circuit court ultimately dismissed the second ticket as well. Susselman then filed a federal lawsuit asserting constitutional and state law claims against Washtenaw County, the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office, the sheriff’s deputy, and Superior Township, Michigan.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all claims. Susselman appealed the decision. The district court had found that the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that Susselman had waived certain state-law claims. The court also dismissed Susselman’s federal claims, including First Amendment retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment malicious prosecution, as well as state-law claims for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Susselman failed to plausibly allege a constitutional violation or behavior by the deputy that would support his claims. Specifically, the court found that the issuance of the second ticket did not constitute a violation of substantive due process or First Amendment rights. Additionally, the court determined that Susselman did not establish a civil conspiracy or meet the requirements for his state-law claims. The court also concluded that Susselman did not identify any municipal policy or custom that resulted in a constitutional violation, thus dismissing his claims against Washtenaw County and Superior Township. View "Susselman v. Washtenaw County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

Nasanto Antonio Crenshaw, a 17-year-old, was shot and killed by Officer Matthew Sletten of the Greensboro, North Carolina police department while driving an allegedly stolen car. Crenshaw's mother, Wakita Doriety, filed a lawsuit against Officer Sletten for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state law claims. The City of Greensboro was also named as a defendant for the state law claims. The City moved to dismiss the claims, asserting governmental immunity, and the district court agreed, dismissing all claims against the City. Officer Sletten also moved to dismiss the claims against him, arguing that the video evidence contradicted the plaintiff's allegations.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina dismissed the claims against the City based on governmental immunity, ruling under Rule 12(b)(2). The court also dismissed the claims against Officer Sletten under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that the video evidence showed Crenshaw driving directly towards the officer, justifying the use of deadly force. The court concluded that the officer's actions were reasonable and dismissed the excessive force claim and the state law claims against him.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the dismissal of the claims against the City but reversed the dismissal of the claims against Officer Sletten. The appellate court held that the district court erred in dismissing the excessive force claim because the video did not blatantly contradict the plaintiff's allegations. The court found that the plaintiff's allegations, when properly construed, were sufficient to state a claim of excessive force under § 1983. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the claims against Officer Sletten. View "Doriety v. Sletten" on Justia Law

In 2015, two plaintiffs sued the Chicago Board of Education and various officials, alleging violations of their First Amendment rights and state law. During a deposition in 2017, a confrontation occurred between plaintiffs' attorney Caryn Shaw and opposing counsel Lisa Dreishmire. Shaw allegedly assaulted Dreishmire, leading to police involvement and a complaint to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC). The district court held an evidentiary hearing and found that Shaw misled the court about the incident, prolonging the litigation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois sanctioned Shaw by removing her from the case and ordering "Plaintiffs' counsel" to reimburse the defendants for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Shaw and her co-counsel, Anne Shaw and Donald Villar, appealed the sanctions. The district court's sanctions were based on findings that Shaw intentionally pushed Dreishmire and misrepresented the incident to the court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the sanctions against Caryn Shaw, finding that she had adequate notice and opportunity to respond to the potential sanctions. However, the court vacated the sanctions against Anne Shaw and Donald Villar, concluding that they did not have sufficient notice or opportunity to respond. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in calculating the fee award against Caryn Shaw. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Vega v. Chicago Board of Education" on Justia Law

In May 2019, the City of Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety imposed a 44-hour suspension on Officer David Meinhardt, which was upheld by the City of Sunnyvale Personnel Board. Meinhardt challenged the suspension by filing a petition for writ of administrative mandate in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. On August 6, 2020, the court issued an order denying the petition. Subsequently, on September 25, 2020, a formal judgment was entered, and Meinhardt filed a notice of appeal on October 15, 2020.The Fourth Appellate District, Division One, dismissed the appeal as untimely, concluding that the August 6 order was the final judgment from which Meinhardt should have appealed. The court reasoned that the order denied the petition in its entirety and did not contemplate further action, thus starting the 60-day period for filing an appeal.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to resolve the uncertainty about when the time to appeal starts in writ of administrative mandate proceedings. The court held that the time to appeal begins with the entry of a "judgment" or the service of notice of entry of "judgment," rather than with the filing of an "order" or other ruling. This decision was based on the plain language of relevant statutes and rules, which contemplate the entry of a "judgment," and the policy of providing clear jurisdictional deadlines to avoid inadvertent forfeiture of the right to appeal. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, concluding that Meinhardt's notice of appeal was timely filed within 60 days of the entry of the September 25 judgment. View "Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale" on Justia Law

John Doe, a detained alien, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Northern District of California, challenging his detention at the Golden State Annex (GSA) in the Eastern District of California. He named several federal officials, including the Attorney General and the Acting Director for the San Francisco ICE Field Office, as respondents. Doe sought release unless he was provided a bond hearing. The district court granted Doe’s petition, leading to his release after a bond hearing.The district court denied the respondents' motion to dismiss, which argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because Doe did not name his immediate custodian and filed the petition outside the district of confinement. The court held that the Northern District of California was an appropriate jurisdiction for petitions filed by aliens detained by the San Francisco ICE Field Office.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction over Doe’s habeas petition. The court explained that under Rumsfeld v. Padilla, a core habeas petition challenging present physical confinement must name the immediate custodian, typically the warden, and be filed in the district of confinement. Doe’s petition was a core habeas petition because it sought release from detention. However, Doe failed to name the Facility Administrator of GSA as the respondent and filed the petition in the Northern District of California instead of the Eastern District of California, where he was confined. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss and remanded with instructions to vacate the grant of Doe’s habeas petition. View "DOE V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, EB Holdings II, Inc. and QXH II, Inc., sought coverage from their insurers for legal fees and expenses incurred in defending against a lawsuit alleging fraudulent inducement in the purchase of notes backed by their long-term debt. The insurers denied coverage, claiming the plaintiffs made material misrepresentations in their insurance renewal application by failing to disclose significant long-term debt.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment in favor of the insurers, concluding that Nevada law governed the affirmative defense of material misrepresentation. The court found that the plaintiffs had indeed made a material misrepresentation by not disclosing their long-term debt, thus barring coverage under the insurance policies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court erred in its choice-of-law analysis. The Ninth Circuit determined that Texas law, not Nevada law, should govern the affirmative defense of material misrepresentation. The court reasoned that the substantial relationship test set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 188 pointed to Texas law, given that the underwriting process largely occurred through agents based in Texas and the plaintiffs were headquartered there.Applying Texas law, the Ninth Circuit found that there were material disputes of fact regarding the elements of the affirmative defense, including the plaintiffs' intent to deceive and whether the insurers provided timely notice of their refusal to be bound by the policy. Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "EB HOLDINGS II, INC. V. ILLINOIS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY" on Justia Law

Cybercriminals hacked into T-Mobile's computer systems, stealing personal information of approximately 76.6 million customers. Several customers filed class action lawsuits against T-Mobile, which were centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The parties reached a settlement, with T-Mobile agreeing to create a $350 million fund for affected customers and to spend an additional $150 million on data security improvements. Class counsel requested $78.75 million in attorneys' fees, which two class members, Cassie Hampe and Connie Pentz, objected to as excessive.The district court struck Hampe's and Pentz's objections and overruled them on the merits. The court found Hampe's objection to be in bad faith, influenced by her attorneys' history as serial objectors, and struck it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Pentz's objection was struck as a discovery sanction after she refused to cooperate with class counsel's discovery efforts. Both objectors appealed the district court's decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in striking Hampe's objection, as Rule 12(f) does not apply to objections and there was no evidence of bad faith in this case. The court also found that the district court erred in awarding attorneys' fees, determining that the fee award was unreasonable given the relatively short duration and limited discovery of the case. The court affirmed the decision to strike Pentz's objection but reversed the decision to strike Hampe's objection and the award of attorneys' fees, remanding for further proceedings. View "Daruwalla v. Hampe" on Justia Law