Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Two campus police officers at Shepherd University, Jay Longerbeam and Donald Buracker, were terminated due to alleged "misconduct" and "unprofessionalism" during two incidents in 2018 and 2019. The officers claimed that their termination was a result of age and disability discrimination, retaliation under the West Virginia Human Rights Act (HRA), violation of the West Virginia Whistle-blower Law, and common law wrongful discharge. The Circuit Court of Jefferson County granted summary judgment against both officers on all claims.The officers appealed the decision, arguing that the lower court erred in finding no genuine issues of material fact and in its handling of the burden-shifting paradigm. They contended that their conduct during the incidents was legally proper and that the court failed to consider intervening acts of reprisal which were more temporally proximate to their protected activity than their discharge.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia found that the lower court erred in its handling of the "temporal proximity" issue and the burden-shifting paradigm. The court also found that the officers offered more than sufficient evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could find retaliatory motivation. Therefore, the court reversed the lower court's grant of summary judgment as to the officers’ whistle-blower and Harless claims and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment as to Buracker’s HRA disability discrimination claim, finding his evidence insufficient to create an inference of disability discrimination. View "Jay Longerbeam v. Shepherd University" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Terry Cousins' efforts to obtain public records related to her sister, who died while in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC). Cousins alleged that the DOC's response to her public records request violated the Public Records Act (PRA). The main issue was whether Cousins' PRA action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations.Previously, the DOC had responded to Cousins' request by producing multiple installments of records and then sent Cousins a letter in January 2019 stating that her request was "now closed". Cousins asked about specific records she believed were missing, and the DOC reopened Cousins' original PRA request to conduct an additional search, leading to the production of hundreds of pages of previously undisclosed responsive records, followed by a second letter stating that the request was "now closed" in June 2021.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that the June 2021 closing letter was DOC’s final, definitive response to Cousins’ PRA request. The court ruled that Cousins' PRA action was not barred by the statute of limitations. The court reversed the decision of the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Cousins v. Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The case involves AURC III LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, and several Washington and Delaware limited liability companies collectively referred to as Point Ruston. Point Ruston purchased a 97-acre former copper smelter and environmental clean-up site located on the Puget Sound waterfront in Ruston and Tacoma, Washington, for $169,000,000 and developed it in phases. To fund the second phase of development, Point Ruston negotiated a $66 million loan from American United Development Group, which created AURC III LLC to raise and manage funds from foreign investors seeking United States residency. After disbursing the full amount of the loan, AURC filed an amended complaint against Point Ruston, alleging that Point Ruston was delinquent on interest payments in breach of its loan agreement. The superior court ordered Point Ruston and AURC to engage in arbitration as per their loan agreement.The arbitrator issued an interim award only on the amount of current and default interest due and awarded $10,969,015 to AURC. The arbitrator then issued a final award for the same amount, as well as awarding attorney fees and arbitration fees and expenses. In total, Point Ruston was required to pay over $11.4 million. AURC moved to confirm the award and for presentation of judgment. Initially, Point Ruston agreed AURC was “entitled to confirmation of the Award and entry of a Final Judgment” but opposed attaching the arbitrator’s awards to that judgment. Before the court could enter the written confirmation order and judgment, Point Ruston paid the award and filed a motion to dismiss the case as moot because no live dispute remained. After AURC alerted the court that it received the award amount from Point Ruston, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The court entered the confirmation order with the interim and final awards attached as exhibits, as well as a judgment against Point Ruston. AURC filed a full satisfaction of judgment.Point Ruston appealed on two grounds. It challenged (1) the superior court’s denial of the motion to dismiss and (2) the court’s decision to attach the arbitration awards to the confirmation order. Division Two of the Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. Point Ruston sought review in the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, which was granted.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that when a party seeks a confirmation order, RCW 7.04A.220 requires issuance of the order subject to narrow exceptions inapplicable here. Payment of an arbitration award does not render the underlying case moot. The court also held that attaching an arbitrator’s award merely identifies the basis for the confirmation order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Court of Appeals. View "AURC III, LLC v. Point Ruston Phase II, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare's (the Department) action to set aside a transfer of real property from two Medicaid recipients, Robert Gilbert and Juanita Gilbert, to their five grandchildren. The Department had provided Robert and Juanita with Medicaid benefits totaling over $140,000. In 2005, Robert and Juanita executed two quitclaim deeds transferring their interest in real property to themselves and their grandchildren. After their deaths, the Department filed an action to set aside the two quitclaim deeds, alleging that the estates did not receive adequate consideration for the transfer of their interests in the real property. One of the grandchildren, Earle L. Beason, argued that the Department’s action was barred by the statute of limitations and that Robert and Juanita received adequate consideration for their interests in the property.The District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Idaho granted the Department’s motion for summary judgment and entered a judgment in favor of the Department setting aside the quitclaim deeds. The court concluded that the Department’s action was timely and that the Department had demonstrated the absence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding adequate consideration. Earle L. Beason appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the Department’s action was timely filed pursuant to Idaho Code section 5-224, the catch-all statute of limitation, which provides a four-year limitation period when an action for relief is not otherwise provided for. The court also affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department because Earle L. Beason did not establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding adequate consideration. View "Idaho Department of Health and Welfare v. Beason" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over a medical marijuana cultivation license issued by the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Commission to Bennett Scott “Storm” Nolan II. 2600 Holdings, LLC, an unsuccessful applicant for the same license, filed a lawsuit against the Commission and other state entities, alleging that Nolan's application did not meet the minimum merit selection criteria and that the Commission violated its own rules and the Arkansas Constitution in awarding the license to Nolan. Nolan was not initially named as a defendant or joined as a party in the lawsuit.The Pulaski County Circuit Court denied Nolan's multiple motions to join the lawsuit as an indispensable party under Rule 19(a) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure and granted summary judgment in favor of 2600 Holdings. The court ruled that the Commission had exceeded its discretion and violated the Arkansas Constitution and its own rules in awarding the license to Nolan.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the lower court's decision, finding that Nolan was indeed an indispensable party under Rule 19(a)(2). The court held that the lower court erred in not joining Nolan as an indispensable party to the litigation. As a result, the court vacated the order granting summary judgment to 2600 Holdings and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court did not address Nolan's remaining issues as they were deemed moot due to the reversal and remand. View "Nolan v. 2600 Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the will of Dennis Schmeling, who left his farmland to his sister-in-law, Sharon, in his 2021 will. Two of Dennis's brothers and one nephew contested the will, alleging undue influence by Sharon. The Estate moved for summary judgment, arguing that the contestants could not show that the devise was the result of undue influence, based on a previous court decision (In re Estate of Tank). The circuit court agreed with the Estate, concluding that there was no evidence showing that Dennis had a testamentary disposition toward the contestants and that the contestants did not present evidence showing that Sharon participated in the drafting of the disputed will or engaged in acts of undue influence. The contestants appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reversed the circuit court's decision and remanded the case. The Supreme Court found that the circuit court had erred by granting summary judgment on grounds not raised by the parties and by granting the Estate's motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court concluded that there were material issues of fact in dispute on the contestants' claim that the 2021 Will was the result of Sharon’s undue influence. Therefore, the circuit court erred in granting the Estate’s motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court also found that the circuit court erred in denying the contestants' partial motion for summary judgment, as it was undisputed that neither the 2002 Will nor the 2021 Will contains language expressly disinheriting the contestants. View "In re Estate Of Schmeling" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the procedural interplay between two Mississippi statutes—the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA) and the Mississippi Whistleblower Protection Act (MWPA). Mark Johnson, the plaintiff, filed a retaliation complaint under the MWPA, alleging that he was fired from his position as general manager of the Clarksdale Public Utilities Authority (CPU) for reporting inefficiency and incompetence. Johnson later added claims for First Amendment retaliation and breach of contract.The district court held that the procedural requirements of the MTCA applied to Johnson’s MWPA claim, and because the court concluded he didn’t comply with them, it dismissed his claim. The district court also concluded that Johnson’s First Amendment retaliation and breach-of-contract claims were time-barred because the three-year statute of limitations for these claims ran after Johnson filed his first complaint but before he amended to add these claims—and neither claim relates back. Johnson appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was unable to make a reliable Erie guess as to whether the MTCA’s procedural requirements apply to MWPA claims because it lacked clear guidance from Mississippi courts on how the two statutes interrelate. Therefore, the court certified this question to the Supreme Court of Mississippi: When a plaintiff brings a claim against the government and its employees for tortious conduct under the MWPA, is that claim subject to the procedural requirements of the MTCA? View "Johnson v. Miller" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a premises liability claim filed by Diane Lands against Sunset Manor, LP, and Bingham County Senior Citizens Center, Inc. Lands tripped on an uneven sidewalk outside her apartment building, Sunset Manor, and suffered injuries including a concussion, headaches, chin pain, dizziness, and short-term memory loss. She claimed that her injuries were a result of the fall and sought damages for past and future medical expenses, non-economic damages, and other losses.The District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Idaho had previously reviewed the case. The court issued a scheduling order setting deadlines for disclosing expert witnesses and completing discovery. Lands failed to meet these deadlines, leading to the exclusion of her expert witnesses at trial. The district court also limited the time period for which non-economic damages could be recovered due to the lack of expert testimony.In the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho, Lands argued that her disclosure deadlines were automatically extended when the trial and pretrial conference were postponed. She also contended that the district court erroneously required non-retained experts to be disclosed at the same time and in the same manner as retained experts. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the district court, ruling that Lands' disclosure deadlines were not extended and that any error in the district court's interpretation of the disclosure requirement for non-retained witnesses was harmless. The court also held that the district court did not err in limiting Lands' non-economic damages. View "Lands v. Sunset Manor, LP" on Justia Law

The case involves Dennis Neate, a former employee of the James B. Oswald Company (Oswald), an insurance firm. Neate left Oswald to work for Hylant Group, Inc., another insurance firm, and some of his clients followed him. Oswald accused Neate of violating his non-solicitation agreement and sued in federal district court. The court issued a preliminary injunction ordering Neate and others to comply with Oswald’s non-solicitation agreement. Neate appealed.Previously, the district court granted a preliminary injunction after an evidentiary hearing. The injunction prohibited Neate and others from violating their agreements with Oswald, retaining or using Oswald's confidential information, and soliciting or accepting business from Oswald's clients. The injunction also required all defendants to return all of Oswald's property.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded the case. The court found that the district court failed to properly apply Ohio law in determining the reasonableness of the non-solicitation agreement. The court also found that the injunction did not meet the specificity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(1), as it incorporated the non-solicitation agreement by reference. However, the court agreed with the district court that Oswald had shown a likelihood of success on its trade-secrets claims. View "James B. Oswald Co. v. Neate" on Justia Law

The case involves three consolidated appeals by Dexcom, Inc., a California-based company, against the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California to remand three product liability actions back to California state court. The remand was based on the forum defendant rule, which prohibits removal based on diversity jurisdiction if any of the defendants is a citizen of the state where the action is brought.Dexcom had removed the cases to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction after the complaints were submitted electronically but before they were officially filed by the clerk of court. Dexcom argued that the forum defendant rule did not bar removal because it had not yet been “joined and served” as a defendant.The district court held that an electronically submitted complaint is not “filed” in California state court until it is processed and endorsed or otherwise acknowledged as officially filed by the clerk of the court. Therefore, Dexcom’s removals were ineffectual attempts to remove cases that did not yet exist as civil actions pending in state court. As a result, the district court had the power to grant the plaintiffs’ eventual motions to remand based on a perceived violation of the forum defendant rule, even though the motions were brought 31 days after Dexcom’s initial (ineffectual) notices of removal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, as the district court had the power under § 1447(c) to order remand based on the forum defendant rule. View "Casola v. Dexcom, Inc." on Justia Law