Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Claude Stephen Bent, a lawful permanent resident from Jamaica, pleaded no contest to two felony charges in California in 2006. The judge did not inform him of the immigration consequences of his plea. After serving his sentence, Bent was detained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2016 and charged with removability based on his felony conviction. Bent applied for asylum and other relief, but an immigration judge (IJ) denied his application and ordered his removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision. Bent appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which remanded the case to the BIA. The BIA again dismissed his appeal, and Bent petitioned for review.Bent moved to vacate his 2006 conviction in California state court, which was granted in 2022 on the grounds that his plea was involuntary and violated his Fifth Amendment rights. Bent then moved to reopen his removal proceedings before the BIA, arguing that his vacated conviction invalidated the basis for his removal. The BIA denied the motion, stating it was untimely and not subject to equitable tolling, and mischaracterized the California statute as allowing vacatur solely to mitigate immigration consequences.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the BIA erred in its interpretation of California Penal Code § 1473.7(a)(1) and the state court's order, which vacated Bent's conviction due to a constitutional defect, not to alleviate immigration consequences. The Ninth Circuit also held that the BIA misapplied equitable tolling precedent by not properly assessing whether Bent diligently pursued his rights. The court granted Bent's petition for review in part and remanded the case to the BIA to adjudicate his motion to reopen under the correct legal standards. View "BENT V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiffs, Election Integrity Project California, Inc., and ten former political candidates, challenged the California Secretary of State’s certification of the November 2020 general election results and sought to declare California’s vote-by-mail election system unconstitutional. They alleged that state and county officials diluted the voting power of in-person voters and voters in certain counties by inadvertently counting some invalid vote-by-mail ballots.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for failure to state a claim. The district court concluded that even if all the plaintiffs’ allegations were true, they failed to state plausible claims of constitutional violations in the administration of California’s elections. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ vote dilution claim failed as a matter of law because they did not show disproportionate voting power for some voters over others. The court found that any effect of counting invalid vote-by-mail ballots was the same for all votes, regardless of voting method or geography. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that California’s election laws and county practices violated the Equal Protection Clause, finding that the state’s election rules and practices satisfied the requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs’ allegations of election irregularities did not plausibly demonstrate the scale of disenfranchisement or lack of integrity necessary to state a due process claim.Finally, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiffs a further opportunity to amend their complaint, as any further amendment would likely prove futile. The court affirmed the district court’s order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims without leave to amend. View "ELECTION INTEGRITY PROJECT CALIFORNIA, INC. V. WEBER" on Justia Law

Kevin Jucht and Nathan Schulz are neighboring farmers. Jucht sued Schulz, alleging that Schulz's chemical spray drifted onto Jucht's property, damaging his soybeans. Jucht reported the incident to the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR) and subsequently filed a lawsuit against Schulz for negligence, strict liability, trespass, and nuisance, seeking actual and punitive damages. Schulz moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Jucht failed to provide the statutory notice required under SDCL 38-21-46.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, McCook County, granted Schulz's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that Jucht's failure to provide the notice required by SDCL 38-21-46 barred him from seeking recovery for the alleged damages. Jucht appealed the decision, arguing that the lack of notice should not bar his cause of action.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and reversed the circuit court's decision. The Supreme Court held that while SDCL 38-21-46 requires a person claiming damages from pesticide use to notify the applicator, failure to provide such notice does not automatically bar the claimant from bringing their claim. Instead, a claimant is barred from seeking recovery under SDCL 38-21-47 only if they fail to allow the applicator to inspect the alleged damage. The court emphasized that the purpose of the notice is to enable timely inspection by the applicator. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the nature and timing of the notice Schulz received and whether he was given the opportunity to inspect the damage. View "Jucht v. Schulz" on Justia Law

In 2018, Officer Patrick Kaine of the City of Wauwatosa Police Department stopped a vehicle based on a citizen's tip about a potential robbery. The vehicle contained Akil Carter, Paulette Barr, and Sandra Adams. Officer Kaine handcuffed Carter and placed him in the back of his squad car while he investigated. He soon realized the tip was mistaken, uncuffed Carter, and allowed the group to leave. Carter, Barr, and Adams subsequently sued Officer Kaine, other officers, and the City of Wauwatosa, alleging violations of their Fourth Amendment rights.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, where the jury found in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging several pretrial and trial decisions, including the bifurcation of the trial, jury instructions, exclusion of their police-practices expert, and the judge's failure to recuse himself. They also contested the district judge's denial of their Batson challenge to a peremptory strike.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no error in the district judge's decisions regarding bifurcation, jury instructions, exclusion of the expert, or recusal. However, the court determined that the district judge did not properly conduct the third step of the Batson inquiry, which requires assessing whether the race-neutral reasons for the peremptory strike were pretextual. The court remanded the case for further findings on the Batson challenge to Juror 10, instructing the district judge to complete the three-step Batson process and make the necessary credibility determinations on the record. The court affirmed the district court's decisions in all other respects. View "Carter v. City of Wauwatosa" on Justia Law

Jason Ziemann, the plaintiff, became involved in the operation of Grosz Wrecking, a business owned by his grandmother, Juanita Grosz, after her husband passed away. Ziemann moved into a home on the business property in 2014. In 2022, Grosz sought to evict Ziemann after he refused to purchase the home. Ziemann then sued Grosz, alleging they had an oral partnership agreement and sought a declaration of partnership, accounting, and dissolution, along with claims for breach of fiduciary duties and tortious interference with a business relationship. Grosz denied the partnership and counterclaimed for trespass.The District Court of McLean County denied Ziemann’s motion for partial summary judgment, ruling factual issues existed regarding the partnership. The court granted Grosz’s motion, dismissing Ziemann’s claims for tortious interference and breach of fiduciary duty, citing inadmissible hearsay and lack of evidence for damages. After a bench trial, the court found the parties had formed a partnership with specific profit-sharing terms and dismissed Grosz’s trespass claim, allowing Ziemann to remain on the property until the business was dissolved. The court ordered the liquidation of partnership assets and awarded Ziemann costs.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It affirmed the lower court’s findings that a partnership existed and that Grosz contributed property to it. The court also upheld the dismissal of Grosz’s trespass claim and Ziemann’s claims for tortious interference and breach of fiduciary duty. However, it reversed the lower court’s decision not to apply the default partnership winding up provisions under N.D.C.C. § 45-20-07. The case was remanded for the district court to enter judgment consistent with this decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the award of costs and disbursements to Ziemann as the prevailing party. View "Ziemann v. Grosz" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Robert V. Bolinske, Sr., filed a defamation claim against Dale V. Sandstrom and Gail Hagerty, alleging that defamatory statements were made and published online on October 18, 2016. Bolinske served a demand for retraction on January 14, 2017, but Sandstrom did not respond. Bolinske commenced the action on February 26, 2019, beyond the two-year statute of limitations for defamation claims.The District Court of Burleigh County initially dismissed Bolinske’s defamation claim, citing the statute of limitations. However, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed this decision in part, noting that the statute of limitations defense was not specifically pled by answer, and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, Sandstrom answered the amended complaint, including the statute of limitations defense, and filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the district court granted, finding the defamation claim time-barred. The court also awarded attorney’s fees to Sandstrom, deeming Bolinske’s claims frivolous.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the defamation claim was indeed barred by the statute of limitations, as the action was commenced more than two years and 45 days after the publication of the alleged defamatory statements. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees, agreeing with the lower court’s assessment that Bolinske’s claims were frivolous and that the fees requested were reasonable. The Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decisions. View "Bolinske v. Sandstrom" on Justia Law

Mark Rath and Heather Zins share a child, A.J.O., born in 2004. Zins was awarded primary residential responsibility, and Rath was ordered to pay child support. A.J.O. turned 18 in November 2022, ending Rath's ongoing support obligation, but he had accrued arrears. Rath was served with an order to show cause for civil contempt due to non-payment. After an evidentiary hearing, a judicial referee found Rath in contempt and ordered him to make monthly payments towards his arrears, with a suspended 20-day jail sentence contingent on a future hearing.Rath sought review by the District Court of Burleigh County, which adopted the judicial referee's findings. Rath appealed, arguing violations of his right to counsel, errors in child support calculations, and that the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act limits the State's ability to collect more than fifty percent of his income. He also claimed the defense of laches and third-party standing should prevent enforcement of his obligations.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case under a clearly erroneous standard. The court held that Rath's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated because the contempt hearing did not result in immediate incarceration, and procedural safeguards were followed. The court also found that Rath's child support obligation continued despite temporary custody by the division of juvenile services and that the doctrine of laches does not apply to child support arrearages. Additionally, the court ruled that the State and Zins have standing to collect arrears even after the child reached the age of majority, and the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act does not limit the State's collection efforts in this context. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Burleigh County Social Service Board v. Rath" on Justia Law

Thomas Zundel attempted to purchase a firearm but was denied due to a 1990 simple assault charge in Jamestown Municipal Court, which was flagged in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The charge was noted as continued for a year pending counseling, with no conviction confirmed. Zundel's voluntary appeal to the FBI was denied because the final disposition of the case was missing. Zundel sought records from various agencies, but none had documentation beyond the initial arrest. He then petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to close the case and restore his constitutional rights.The Jamestown Municipal Court and other respondents argued that Zundel had an adequate remedy in federal court, referencing Ross v. Fed. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. However, the North Dakota Supreme Court found that a federal suit would not adequately address the state court records issue. The court emphasized the municipal court's duty to maintain accurate records and noted that the missing record should have been retained permanently according to administrative rules.The North Dakota Supreme Court granted the petition in part, ordering the Jamestown Municipal Court to conduct a diligent inquiry to locate or reconstruct the missing record and document the results. The court denied Zundel's requests for declaratory relief regarding the nature of the 1990 charge and his right to possess a firearm, citing a lack of evidence in the record to make such determinations. The court's decision underscores the importance of accurate court records for due process and public accountability. View "Zundel v. City of Jamestown" on Justia Law

Trevor Davis filed a lawsuit against Deputy Christopher Allen under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Allen violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force during his arrest. Davis had several outstanding warrants for violent felonies, and when officers arrived to arrest him, he fled into a trailer. Deputy Allen used his police dog, Koda, to locate Davis inside the trailer. Despite Davis lying face-down with his hands over his head, Koda bit him, causing severe injury. Davis alleged that Allen failed to recall Koda after Davis had surrendered.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied Deputy Allen’s motion for summary judgment. The court found that there were material disputes of fact regarding the circumstances and timing of the use of the police dog, which precluded a finding of qualified immunity at this stage. Specifically, the court noted that a jury could find that a reasonable officer would have known that Davis had surrendered and that continuing to allow Koda to bite him constituted excessive force.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The court noted that the district court’s denial of qualified immunity was based on disputed facts, which are not subject to interlocutory appeal. The Seventh Circuit emphasized that the reasonableness of Deputy Allen’s actions depended on resolving these factual disputes, such as whether Davis was visibly unarmed and compliant. The court concluded that it could not address the merits of the qualified immunity claim without first resolving these factual issues, which must be done by a jury. View "Davis v. Allen" on Justia Law

Samuel Hickman was electrocuted while working on a construction site when a boom crane contacted overhead power lines. Hickman and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit against Boomers, LLC, its owner Michael Landon, and employee Colter James Johnson, alleging negligence and recklessness. Boomers moved for summary judgment, claiming immunity under Idaho’s Worker’s Compensation Law. Hickman argued that the accident fell under the “willful or unprovoked physical aggression” exception to the exclusive remedy rule. The district court granted summary judgment for Boomers and denied Hickman’s motion for reconsideration.The district court applied the 2020 amended version of Idaho Code section 72-209(3), which clarified the “willful or unprovoked physical aggression” exception, and concluded that Boomers did not intend to harm Hickman or have actual knowledge that injury was substantially likely. Hickman appealed, arguing that the district court should have applied the pre-amendment version of the statute and the standard from Gomez v. Crookham Co., which interpreted the exception to include conscious disregard of knowledge that an injury would result.The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed the district court’s decision, holding that the pre-amendment version of section 72-209(3) and the Gomez standard should apply. The court found that the additional evidence submitted by Hickman in his motion for reconsideration created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Johnson consciously disregarded the known risk of injury from the power lines. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Hickman v. Boomers, LLC" on Justia Law