Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, including Mike Yoder and his company Drone Deer Recovery, LLC (DDR), along with hunter Jeremy Funke, challenged a Michigan law that bans the use of drones to hunt or collect downed game. DDR uses drones equipped with infrared cameras to locate downed game and provide hunters with GPS coordinates. Plaintiffs argued that the law prevents DDR from operating in Michigan, violating their First Amendment rights to create, disseminate, and receive information.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed the complaint, holding that Plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to state a claim. The court found that the law did not prohibit the dissemination of location information but only the use of drones to locate game, which it deemed non-speech conduct. The court also concluded that the alleged injury was not redressable because the law would still prohibit drone use even if the requested injunction was granted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that Plaintiffs had standing but failed to state a claim. The court determined that Plaintiffs' intended conduct of using drones to create and share location information was arguably affected with a constitutional interest and that there was a credible threat of enforcement under the Michigan law. However, the court applied intermediate scrutiny, finding the law content-neutral and justified by substantial governmental interests in conservation and fair-chase hunting principles. The court concluded that the law was narrowly tailored to achieve these interests and did not violate the First Amendment.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, holding that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. View "Yoder v. Bowen" on Justia Law

Kenneth H. Kofler and Billee K. Reis share a minor child, A.V.R. In 2017, Kofler filed a Petition to Establish Parenting Plan in Flathead County District Court, Montana. At that time, Kofler lived in Vancouver, Washington, and Reis and A.V.R. lived in Kalispell, Montana. The court issued a final parenting plan in December 2018, which allowed Kofler to gradually increase his parenting time. In 2019, Kofler requested an amendment to the plan due to his inability to move to Kalispell. Subsequent allegations of abuse by Reis led to a criminal investigation, which did not result in charges. The court issued an interim parenting plan in November 2022, requiring reunification therapy for Kofler and A.V.R.Reis relocated to North Carolina without permission and filed for emergency custody there. The North Carolina court initially granted her request but later dismissed the action after communication with the Montana court, which refused to relinquish jurisdiction. The Montana District Court reaffirmed its jurisdiction and ordered reunification therapy. Reis appealed the court's refusal to transfer jurisdiction and its award of attorney’s fees to Kofler.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the District Court's decision to retain jurisdiction, citing the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The court found that Montana retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction as there was no pending proceeding in another state. The court also noted that the North Carolina court could not accept jurisdiction while the Montana proceeding was active.However, the Montana Supreme Court reversed the District Court's award of attorney’s fees to Kofler, finding no statutory or contractual basis for such an award. The court emphasized that attorney’s fees are generally not recoverable without specific legal authority. View "In re Parenting of A.V.R." on Justia Law

Donald Thorpe sought disability benefits, claiming that his health issues rendered him unable to work. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied his claim, relying on the testimony of a vocational expert. Thorpe appealed to the district court, which affirmed the ALJ’s decision, stating that Thorpe forfeited any challenge to the expert testimony by failing to object timely and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence.The district court found that Thorpe did not object to the vocational expert’s testimony during the hearing or in a post-hearing brief, thus forfeiting his right to challenge it. The court also determined that the ALJ’s decision was based on substantial evidence, including the expert’s testimony, which was consistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) and supported by the expert’s qualifications and experience.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the district court. The court held that Thorpe forfeited his ability to challenge the expert’s testimony by not objecting during the hearing. The court also found that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, as the expert’s testimony had sufficient indicia of reliability, including consistency with the DOT and the expert’s qualifications.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that the ALJ did not err in relying on the vocational expert’s testimony to determine that Thorpe was not disabled and could find other gainful employment. View "Thorpe v Bisignano" on Justia Law

A law firm, Sutter & Gillham PLLC, and its partners were involved in a contentious wrongful-death lawsuit in Arkansas, representing the family of a teenage boy who died from a gunshot wound. The family suspected foul play, while the boy's friends claimed it was suicide. The state court dismissed the case with prejudice, citing misconduct by the family and its attorneys. Although the firm had withdrawn from the case, it felt unfairly maligned by the court's order. One partner's attempt to intervene and seek recusal of the judge was denied, and no appeal was filed. The family successfully overturned the dismissal, and the case remains pending.The firm faced related litigation, including a state court lawsuit by the wrongful-death defendants against the firm and its partners for alleged misconduct. The firm also filed a federal lawsuit alleging constitutional violations by the wrongful-death defendants and their attorneys, claiming they conspired with the state trial judge. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the case under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents federal courts from reviewing state court judgments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply because the federal lawsuit did not seek to overturn the state court judgment but rather targeted the actions of the defendants and their attorneys. The court emphasized that the doctrine only applies when a federal action is essentially an appeal of a state court decision. The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the plaintiffs to pursue their claims. View "Sutter & Gillham PLLC v. Henry" on Justia Law

The Anne Carlsen Center (ACC) petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court for a supervisory writ after the district court granted plaintiff A.K.-W.'s motion to compel discovery of documents that ACC claimed were not subject to disclosure. The case arose from an alleged sexual assault of A.K.-W., an autistic child, by an ACC employee. The plaintiff's grandmother and adoptive parent, Lisa Wibstad, noticed signs of trauma and sought medical care, leading to a Sexual Assault Nurse Examination (SANE) that documented injuries consistent with sexual contact. The employee was placed on administrative leave and later terminated, but criminal charges were dismissed for lack of probable cause. Wibstad then filed a civil suit against ACC.The district court ordered an in-camera review of the disputed documents and subsequently granted the motion to compel, concluding that the asserted privileges did not apply. The court ordered the documents to be re-designated from "sealed" to "confidential." ACC then sought a supervisory writ from the North Dakota Supreme Court, arguing that the district court's order was contrary to law and created an injustice without an adequate alternative remedy.The North Dakota Supreme Court found that the district court erred by not explaining why the asserted privileges did not apply and by not addressing necessary or agreed-upon redactions. The court noted that the district court's order lacked sufficient detail for meaningful review and directed the district court to vacate its order and enter a new order that addresses redactions and explains the decision on a document-by-document, privilege-by-privilege basis. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for specificity in claims of privilege and the importance of providing readable documents for review. View "Anne Carlsen Center v. LeFevre" on Justia Law

The appellants, Banoka S.à.r.l. and others, sought third-party discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 from Elliott Management Corp. and related entities for use in a contemplated fraud lawsuit in England. The dispute arose from a failed transaction involving the sale of a Paris hotel, where Westmont International Development Inc. was the potential buyer, and the Elliott entities were to provide funding. Banoka alleged that Westmont acted in bad faith during negotiations, leading to the collapse of the deal.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Banoka's petition for discovery from Elliott Management Corp. and its affiliates, but allowed limited discovery from the Elliott Funds. The court found that the forum-selection clause in the agreement between Banoka and Westmont, which designated English courts for dispute resolution, weighed against granting the petition. Additionally, the court determined that Banoka's discovery requests were overly broad and burdensome, particularly since the relevant documents and custodians were primarily located abroad.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the forum-selection clause as a factor against granting the discovery petition. The court also found no error in the district court's conclusion that the discovery requests were unduly burdensome, given their broad scope and the foreign location of the documents and custodians. The appellate court emphasized that the district court's careful and contextual analysis of the relevant factors was appropriate and within its discretion. View "Banoka S.à.r.l. v. Elliott Mgmt. Corp." on Justia Law

Alan Juliuson rented three tracts of farmland from various owners, collectively referred to as Johnson, for over 40 years. In 2018, he contracted to farm the property until December 2021, with an option to renew and a right of first refusal to purchase the property. Towards the end of the lease, Johnson proposed new lease terms that increased the rent, removed the right of first refusal, and included a termination clause if the property was sold. Juliuson did not respond to these terms and later offered to purchase the property, which Johnson rejected, selling it instead to Bjerke Holdings, LLLP.Juliuson sued Johnson, Bjerke, and Farmers National Company (FNC) for various claims, including breach of contract, specific performance, and deceit. The district court dismissed several claims through summary judgment and ruled against Juliuson on others after a jury trial. The jury found no breach of the right of first refusal or the option to renew. Juliuson’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law were denied.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict that Johnson did not breach the lease renewal option or the right of first refusal. The court also upheld the dismissal of Juliuson’s claims for specific performance, finding no breach of contract to warrant such a remedy. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and deceit, as these claims were not supported by independent tortious conduct separate from the alleged breach of contract. The district court’s judgment dismissing Juliuson’s claims with prejudice was affirmed. View "Juliuson v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The case involves the District of Columbia's Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) claims against Facebook, Inc. stemming from the Cambridge Analytica data leak. In 2018, it was revealed that Cambridge Analytica had improperly obtained data from millions of Facebook users through a third-party application developed by Aleksandr Kogan. The District of Columbia alleged that Facebook violated the CPPA by unintentionally misleading consumers about data accessibility to third-party applications, Facebook's enforcement capabilities, and failing to disclose the data breach in a timely manner.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of Facebook, concluding that the District had to prove its CPPA claims by clear and convincing evidence. The court found that Facebook's disclosures were accurate and that no reasonable consumer could have been misled. Additionally, the court excluded the testimony of the District's expert witness, Dr. Florian Schaub, criticizing his analytical methods and analysis.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that CPPA claims based on unintentional misrepresentations need only be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, not by clear and convincing evidence. The court reversed the trial court's summary judgment decision and remanded the case for reconsideration under the correct burden of proof. The appellate court also reversed the trial court's exclusion of Dr. Schaub's testimony, finding that the trial court's reasoning was insufficient and remanded for further analysis and explanation.The main holding of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals is that CPPA claims based on unintentional misrepresentations require proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and the exclusion of expert testimony must be supported by a thorough analysis consistent with the standards set forth in Motorola Inc. v. Murray. View "District of Columbia v. Facebook, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants, owners of bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (COFINA), sued the United States, alleging a taking of their property under the Fifth Amendment due to the enactment of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA). They claimed that the restructuring of COFINA's debts under PROMESA resulted in a significant loss of the principal and interest value of their bonds and their security interest.The United States Court of Federal Claims determined it had subject matter jurisdiction over the case but dismissed it for failure to state a claim. The court found that the enactment of PROMESA by Congress did not constitute sufficient federal government action to support a takings claim. The court reasoned that the actions of the Puerto Rico Oversight Board, which was created by PROMESA and acted autonomously, could not be attributed to the United States as coercive or as an agency relationship.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the decision of the Claims Court. The Federal Circuit held that PROMESA did not displace Tucker Act jurisdiction, as there was no clear congressional intent to withdraw the Tucker Act remedy. The court also agreed with the Claims Court that the United States did not exert coercive control over the Oversight Board's actions, which were necessary to establish a taking. The court concluded that the plaintiffs could not establish that the United States was liable for the alleged taking of their property. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Claims Court's decision to deny the plaintiffs' request to amend their complaint. View "DINH v. US " on Justia Law

Paul Kim, a California resident, purchased an Airstream motorhome from a dealer in California. The warranty agreement for the motorhome included an Ohio choice of law provision and an Ohio forum selection clause. Kim sued Airstream in California, alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Consumers Warranty Act. Airstream moved to stay the lawsuit in favor of the Ohio forum, citing the forum selection clause. Kim opposed, arguing that enforcing the forum selection clause would diminish his unwaivable rights under the Song-Beverly Act.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County severed the choice of law provision as illegal under the Song-Beverly Act’s waiver prohibition but granted Airstream’s motion to stay, concluding that enforcing the forum selection clause would not diminish Kim’s unwaivable California rights. The court relied on Airstream’s stipulation to apply the Song-Beverly Act in the Ohio forum.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to sever the choice of law provision but reversed the decision to stay the case. The appellate court held that Airstream’s stipulation was insufficient to meet its burden of proving that enforcing the forum selection clause would not diminish Kim’s unwaivable rights. The court instructed the trial court to allow Airstream the opportunity to demonstrate that Ohio conflict of law principles would require the application of the Song-Beverly Act to Kim’s claims, thereby protecting his unwaivable rights. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Kim v. Airstream" on Justia Law