Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Lamar Catchings, a 20-year-old pretrial detainee, died from undiagnosed acute leukemia while in custody at the St. Louis County Buzz Westfall Justice Center in February 2019. His mother, Tashonda Troupe, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against St. Louis County and numerous jail officials, medical staff, and correctional officers, alleging deliberate indifference to her son’s serious medical needs and failure to train or supervise the staff responsible for his care.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the claims against most defendants at the pleading stage, citing qualified immunity and insufficient factual allegations. The court found that many of Troupe’s allegations were based on “information and belief” and lacked specific factual support. The district court allowed the claim against defendant Anthony Young, a practical nurse, to proceed, but dismissed the claims against other defendants, including correctional officers and medical staff, for lack of sufficient allegations of personal involvement or knowledge of Catchings’s condition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and addressed whether Troupe’s “upon information and belief” allegations were sufficient to state a claim. The court held that such allegations are permissible if the facts are within the possession and control of the defendants or based on factual information that makes the inference of culpability plausible. The court found that Troupe’s allegations met this standard and reversed the district court’s dismissal of claims against certain defendants, including Swims, Beard, Oliver, Doucette, and Murphy. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Mohler and Williams and partially reversed the dismissal of claims against the County, allowing the failure-to-train-or-supervise claim to proceed. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s findings. View "Troupe v. St. Louis County, Missouri" on Justia Law

Thomas Hamann brought a lawsuit against Heart Mountain Irrigation District (HMID) and its manager, Randy Watts, alleging that HMID, through Watts' actions, damaged his property and caused him bodily injury. Hamann sought damages based on claims of inverse condemnation and violation of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of HMID and Watts, dismissing Hamann’s lawsuit entirely. Hamann appealed only the dismissal of his inverse condemnation claim against HMID.The district court found that HMID had not taken any official action to authorize Watts to enter Hamann’s property beyond the limited scope of work on the Riolo bowl, which Hamann had consented to. The court held that without such authorization, Hamann’s inverse condemnation claim could not survive summary judgment. Hamann argued that there was a material issue of fact regarding whether Watts was acting under the scope, authority, and direction of HMID’s board.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the extent of Watts’ authority and whether his actions were authorized by HMID. The court noted that HMID’s bylaws allowed for delegation of responsibilities to its manager and other agents, and there was evidence suggesting that Watts had general discretion as HMID’s manager. Additionally, there was conflicting testimony about whether Watts had specific authorization to access Hamann’s property beyond the Riolo bowl.The court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to HMID, as there were unresolved factual issues regarding the authorization of Watts’ actions and the extent of damage to Hamann’s property due to activities on adjoining land. The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hamann v. Heart Mountain Irrigation District" on Justia Law

Jason Rahimzadeh was injured while riding his bicycle and sought underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage from his employer's commercial automobile insurance policy with Ace American Insurance Company. Ace denied the claim, stating that Rahimzadeh did not qualify as an insured under the policy. Rahimzadeh then filed a lawsuit in Illinois state court, alleging breach of the insurance contract. Ace removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which granted Ace's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.The district court found that the terms of the insurance policy were unambiguous and that Rahimzadeh did not meet the policy's requirement of "occupying" a covered vehicle to qualify as an insured. The court also rejected Rahimzadeh's argument that the occupancy requirement was unenforceable as contrary to public policy, distinguishing the case from Galarza v. Direct Auto Insurance Co., which involved a personal automobile insurance policy. The court relied on Stark v. Illinois Emcasco Insurance Co., which upheld occupancy requirements in commercial policies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court's decision de novo. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the occupancy requirement in the commercial automobile insurance policy was permissible and did not violate Illinois public policy. The court distinguished the case from Galarza, noting that the public policy concerns in personal insurance policies do not apply to commercial policies. Therefore, Rahimzadeh was not entitled to UIM coverage under his employer's policy. The court also declined to certify the question to the Supreme Court of Illinois, finding no genuine uncertainty about the state law issue. View "Rahimzadeh v. Ace American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner James Fredrick filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his confinement in Vermont on a governor’s warrant pending extradition to New York for a second-degree murder charge. The superior court denied the petition, concluding that the extradition process requirements were met. On appeal, Fredrick argued that the governor’s warrant and New York’s extradition application lacked an authenticated copy of the indictment as required by Vermont law.The Caledonia Superior Court, Civil Division, held a hearing and denied Fredrick’s request, reasoning that the governor’s warrant was prima facie evidence that the extradition requirements were satisfied. The court found that the documents showed Fredrick was lawfully charged by indictment. Fredrick appealed the decision on January 9, 2025.During the appeal, Governor Scott recalled the original governor’s warrant and issued a new one, including a copy of the indictment signed by the grand jury foreperson. Fredrick filed another habeas corpus petition challenging the new warrant, which was also denied, and an appeal is pending.The Vermont Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot, noting that the original governor’s warrant was withdrawn and Fredrick’s confinement is now based on a new warrant. The court found no applicable exceptions to mootness, as Fredrick did not demonstrate that the issue was capable of repetition yet evading review, nor did he show negative collateral consequences. The court concluded that there was no longer an actual controversy, and the appeal was dismissed. View "In re James Fredrick" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Vermont’s Auditor of Accounts and the Attorney General. The Auditor sued the Attorney General, alleging non-compliance with the statutory obligation to provide legal advice. The Auditor sought a declaratory judgment affirming his right to retain counsel to sue the Attorney General and mandamus to compel the Attorney General to answer specific legal questions. The trial court dismissed the Auditor’s claims and denied his request for attorneys’ fees.The dispute arose from the Auditor’s audit of a Burlington tax increment financing (TIF) district. The Auditor encountered a perceived gap in TIF statutes and sought advice from the Attorney General, who answered one question but directed the Auditor to other entities for the remaining questions. The Auditor claimed this was a violation of the Attorney General’s duty under 3 V.S.A. § 159 and threatened to sue. The Attorney General responded, explaining her statutory obligations and asserting that the Auditor lacked authority to sue.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the Auditor’s claims for mandamus and declaratory judgment related to the specific TIF questions, concluding that the Attorney General had provided legal advice as required by 3 V.S.A. § 159. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the broader declaratory judgment claim, finding no live controversy as the Attorney General had provided legal advice and there was no policy of refusing to do so.However, the court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the Auditor’s claim for declaratory judgment regarding his right to retain counsel and sue for mandamus. The court held that the Auditor has implied statutory authorization to seek mandamus to enforce the Attorney General’s duty under 3 V.S.A. § 159. The court also affirmed the denial of attorneys’ fees, finding Rule 54 inapplicable for the relief sought by the Auditor. View "Office of the Auditor of Accounts v. Office of the Attorney General" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Aleksandra Veljovic, filed a lawsuit against TD Bank, N.A. and its former employee, Zlata Cavka, alleging negligence, negligent supervision, and respondeat superior. Veljovic claimed that Cavka negligently notarized a fraudulent document used by her ex-husband to secure a divorce order in Serbia, which resulted in the loss of her marital property. Veljovic argued that TD Bank should be held liable for Cavka's actions. The Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division, dismissed Veljovic's complaint with prejudice, concluding that she could not recover for purely economic losses and failed to demonstrate a special relationship between the parties. The court also denied her post-judgment request to amend her complaint.TD Bank moved to dismiss the complaint under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Veljovic's claims were barred by the economic-loss rule, that neither TD Bank nor Cavka owed her an independent duty of care, and that she failed to plead facts establishing necessary causation. The court granted the motion, finding that Veljovic sought compensation solely for economic losses and did not establish a special relationship with the defendants. The court also dismissed the claims against Cavka after Veljovic failed to respond to a show-cause order.Veljovic appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint and denying her motion to amend. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that Veljovic did not allege sufficient facts to show a special relationship with the defendants and that her claims were barred by the economic-loss rule. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying her motion to amend the complaint, as the proposed amendments would not have established a special relationship or overcome the economic-loss rule. View "Veljovic v. TD Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Hexagon US Federal, Inc. ("HexFed") leased a portion of a building, which was later sold to CBS Holdings, LLC. A dispute arose regarding the lease's renewal, leading HexFed to file a lawsuit against CBS Holdings for breach of lease. CBS Holdings counterclaimed. The Madison Circuit Court ruled in favor of HexFed on all claims and awarded costs and attorney fees to be determined later. CBS Holdings appealed, and the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the trial court's judgment, including the award of costs and attorney fees.After an evidentiary hearing, the Madison Circuit Court awarded HexFed $174,987.45 in costs and attorney fees. CBS Holdings appealed, arguing that HexFed's application for attorney fees was inadequately supported due to redacted descriptions of legal work and that the trial court's order lacked sufficient detail for meaningful appellate review.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and agreed with CBS Holdings. The court found that HexFed's heavily redacted invoices did not provide enough information to determine the reasonableness and necessity of the attorney fees. The court emphasized that a trial court's order must allow for meaningful appellate review by articulating the decisions made, the reasons supporting those decisions, and how the attorney fee was calculated, considering all the Peebles factors.The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for HexFed to provide adequate support for its application for costs and attorney fees. The trial court was instructed to accept any necessary information or evidence to confirm the requested attorney fees and to enter a detailed order showing how it calculated the amount awarded and how it considered the Peebles factors. View "CBS Holdings, LLC v. Hexagon US Federal, Inc." on Justia Law

William Navarre purchased a house that had been damaged by two hurricanes in 2020. The previous owners, Bal and Rita Sareen, had received insurance payments from AIG Property Casualty Company but had not assigned their post-loss insurance rights to Navarre at the time of the sale. Navarre filed a lawsuit against AIG, claiming he had been assigned these rights as of the purchase date. However, the formal assignment document was not executed until January 2023, well after the lawsuit was filed and after the prescriptive period for the claims had expired.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted summary judgment in favor of AIG, concluding that Navarre lacked standing to file the lawsuit because the assignment of rights had not been executed at the time he filed the suit. The court also noted that the prescriptive period for the claims had expired by the time the assignment was executed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that the documents Navarre relied on (Addendum A and the Side Letter) did not constitute a present assignment of rights but rather contemplated a future assignment. Since the formal assignment was not executed until January 2023, Navarre did not have standing to sue when he filed the lawsuit in June 2022. Additionally, the court held that the prescriptive period for the claims had expired by the time the assignment was executed, and thus, Navarre could not retroactively cure the deficiency in his original petition. View "Navarre v. AIG Prop Cslty" on Justia Law

James King sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and individual government employees under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, alleging physical abuse by U.S. officials. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on both claims. King appealed only the Bivens claim, making the FTCA judgment final. The individual defendants argued that the FTCA's "judgment bar" precluded the Bivens claim. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that the FTCA judgment barred the Bivens claim.King then filed a Rule 60(b) motion in the district court to reopen the FTCA judgment to withdraw his FTCA claim and avoid the judgment bar. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that attorney error or strategic miscalculation is not a valid basis for reopening under Rule 60. King appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's denial of the Rule 60(b) motion. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as attorney error or strategic miscalculation does not justify reopening a final judgment under Rule 60. The court emphasized the public policy favoring the finality of judgments and noted that Rule 60(b)(6) relief is only available in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, which were not present in this case. View "King v. United States" on Justia Law

Dr. Alan Braid, a Texas OB/GYN, admitted in a Washington Post editorial to performing an abortion in violation of the Texas Heartbeat Act (S.B. 8). This led to three individuals from different states filing lawsuits against him under the Act's citizen-suit enforcement provision, seeking at least $10,000 in statutory damages. Facing potential duplicative liability, Dr. Braid filed a federal interpleader action in Illinois, seeking to join the claimants in a single suit and also sought declaratory relief to declare S.B. 8 unconstitutional.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Dr. Braid’s suit, citing the Wilton-Brillhart abstention doctrine due to the existence of parallel state-court proceedings. The court reasoned that the Texas state courts were better suited to resolve the issues, particularly given the unique enforcement mechanism of S.B. 8. The district court also questioned whether Dr. Braid had a reasonable fear of double liability but ultimately found that it had jurisdiction before deciding to abstain.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court agreed that the district court had jurisdiction over the interpleader action but concluded that abstention was appropriate under the Colorado River doctrine, which allows federal courts to defer to parallel state-court proceedings in exceptional cases. The court emphasized that the Texas courts were better positioned to resolve the complex state-law issues and that abstention would avoid piecemeal litigation and conflicting judgments. The court also noted that the Texas courts could adequately protect Dr. Braid’s rights and that the federal suit appeared to be an attempt to avoid the state-court system. View "Braid v. Stilley" on Justia Law