Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, two national organizations and five sets of parents, challenged three Washington laws regulating minors' access to mental health care and shelter services, particularly for transgender minors. The parents' children had shown signs of gender dysphoria, and the plaintiffs argued that the laws constrained their ability to parent, forced them to censor their speech, and limited their access to information about their children.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the case for lack of standing, finding that the plaintiffs' alleged harms were speculative and not concrete injuries. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated current or future injuries sufficient to confer standing.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 individual plaintiffs lacked standing based on current injuries because their alleged injuries were self-inflicted and not directly caused by the laws. The court also found that the plaintiffs' fears of future injuries were too speculative and not imminent. Additionally, the court held that the organizational plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not demonstrate that their members had standing to sue in their own right.The Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated standing to bring their claims and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action. View "International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Inslee" on Justia Law

Rodney Burch, the former Public Works Director for the City of Chubbuck, Idaho, filed a lawsuit against the City and Mayor Kevin England, alleging First Amendment retaliation and violations of Idaho state law. Burch claimed that adverse employment actions were taken against him due to his protected speech, which included criticisms of England’s policies and performance, advocacy for a city administrator position, and displaying a political yard sign supporting England’s opponent during the mayoral election.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that Burch’s criticisms and advocacy were made pursuant to his official duties and thus were not protected speech under the First Amendment. However, the court recognized that Burch’s political yard sign was protected speech. Despite this, the court concluded that Burch failed to establish a First Amendment violation because the defendants had adequate justification for their actions and would have taken the same actions regardless of the yard sign.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit agreed that Burch’s criticisms and advocacy were unprotected as they were part of his official duties. The court also found that while Burch’s yard sign was protected speech, the defendants had legitimate reasons for their actions, including Burch’s unprotected speech and the need to maintain effective city operations. Additionally, the court held that Burch’s state law claim was time-barred as the adverse employment actions occurred outside the statute of limitations.In conclusion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for the defendants, holding that Burch’s First Amendment retaliation claim and Idaho state law claim both failed as a matter of law. View "Burch v. City of Chubbuck" on Justia Law

John Schutt, as an agent for the J.E. Schutt & M.A. Schutt Family Trust, leased a residential property to Sherri Foster. Foster agreed to pay $1,900 per month in rent, with a late charge of $20 per day for any rent paid after the due date. Foster missed rent payments for July, August, and September 2020. Schutt filed a forcible detainer petition seeking unpaid rent and late fees. Foster countersued for money owed for construction services she performed for Schutt. The district court found Foster owed Schutt $5,700 in unpaid rent and awarded Schutt $21,240 in late fees, calculated at $20 per day for 1,062 days. After offsetting judgments, the court ruled Schutt owed Foster $544.98.Foster appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals, arguing for the first time that the late-fee provision was unconscionable. The Court of Appeals reached the merits of Foster's unconscionability claim, despite it not being raised in the district court, and concluded that the late fees were unconscionable under the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. The panel reversed the district court's award of late fees exceeding $2,460, the amount due for the 123 days between Foster's first missed payment and the date she vacated the property.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that appellants must brief exceptions to the preservation rule in their opening brief, as required by Kansas Supreme Court Rule 6.02(a)(5). Foster failed to comply with this requirement, as she first invoked exceptions to the preservation rule in her reply brief. The court concluded that the Court of Appeals erred by relying on these exceptions to reach the merits of Foster's unconscionability claim. Consequently, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and vacated its opinion, affirming the district court's judgment. View "Schutt v. Foster " on Justia Law

A qui tam relator, Sedona Partners LLC, alleged that several transportation service providers (TSPs) engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud a U.S. government shipping program. The TSPs were accused of submitting low-ball bids to win contracts and then falsely certifying the need for foreign flag vessel waivers, despite knowing that U.S. flag vessels were available. This allowed them to use cheaper foreign vessels, thereby increasing their profits while undercutting competitors who submitted legitimate bids.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida initially dismissed Sedona's first amended complaint without prejudice, citing a lack of specificity in the allegations. Sedona then filed a second amended complaint, which included new allegations based on information obtained during discovery. The defendants moved to dismiss this complaint and to strike the new allegations, arguing that they were derived from discovery and thus circumvented the heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The district court agreed, struck the discovery-based allegations, and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice, concluding that without these allegations, Sedona failed to meet Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Rule 9(b) does not prohibit courts from considering allegations based on information obtained in discovery when deciding a motion to dismiss. The court emphasized that Rule 9(b)'s text does not restrict the source of information used to satisfy its requirements and that supplementing the rule with such a restriction would contravene the Supreme Court's guidance against adding pleading requirements on a case-by-case basis. The appellate court vacated the district court's order dismissing the complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc." on Justia Law

Julie and Gerald Ross (Grandparents) filed a petition in district court to adopt their grandchildren, R.K. and J.K., and to terminate the parental rights of the children's biological parents, Steven and Denielle Kracht (Parents). The district court terminated the parental rights of both parents, finding that they had abandoned and neglected their children, that the father had abused the children, and that both parents were unfit. The adoption petition by the Grandparents was still pending.Parents appealed the termination order to the Utah Court of Appeals before the adoption action concluded. The Court of Appeals certified the matter to the Utah Supreme Court for original appellate review. The central issue was whether the termination order issued by the district court was immediately appealable before the adoption action concluded.The Utah Supreme Court held that Utah Code subsection 78B-6-112(3) creates a statutory exception to the final judgment rule, allowing termination orders issued by district courts to be immediately appealable. The court concluded that the statutory language of subsection 78B-6-112(3) indicates that a district court may enter a final order terminating parental rights before a final decree of adoption is entered, thus making such termination orders appealable upon entry. This decision overruled the Court of Appeals' previous decision in In re Adoption of K.R.S., which had held that no exception to the final judgment rule allowed parties to appeal a district-court-issued termination order before it was final. The Utah Supreme Court retained the case for further argument on the merits of the Parents' challenges to the termination order. View "Ross v. Kracht" on Justia Law

A.K. (Mother) is the mother of four minor children, B.C., K.J.C., D.W.C., and B.C. In 2013, while living in Alaska, the children’s biological father, C.C. (Father), was charged with two counts of sexual abuse of a minor and subsequently incarcerated. That same year, Mother and the children moved to Utah. In 2015, Father was convicted, and in 2016, Mother divorced Father and married L.K. (Stepfather), who then began living with and raising the children alongside Mother.In 2020, Mother and Stepfather filed a petition in district court for Stepfather to adopt the children, which included a motion to terminate Father’s parental rights. Father intervened and opposed the termination and adoption. After an evidentiary hearing, the Second District Court in Weber County terminated Father’s parental rights.Father immediately appealed the termination order. While his appeal was pending, the Utah Court of Appeals decided In re Adoption of K.R.S., holding that a termination order issued by a district court is not immediately appealable when an underlying adoption petition remains unresolved, as it does not constitute a final judgment.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah reviewed the case and, for reasons articulated in Ross v. Kracht, 2025 UT 22, retained jurisdiction to hear further arguments on Father’s challenges to the termination order. The court issued an order requesting the parties to brief the merits of Father’s challenges to the termination order. View "In re Adoption of B.C." on Justia Law

George Merithew, a former police officer with the City of Omaha Police Department (OPD), sued the City of Omaha under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (NFEPA) for retaliation. Merithew, who began his employment with OPD in 1996 and was promoted to lieutenant in 2009, reported a violation of the Palmer Consent Decree in May 2018 and subsequently claimed retaliation by the police chief. He filed a charge of discrimination with the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC) in April 2020 after receiving a 20-day suspension. In June 2020, he received a termination letter, was suspended with pay, and later retired in February 2021 under an "Early Delayed Retirement Option."The District Court for Douglas County granted summary judgment in favor of the City, finding that any alleged discriminatory actions before June 25, 2019, were time-barred and that Merithew failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. The court determined that Merithew did not suffer an adverse employment action and lacked evidence of a causal connection between his protected conduct and the alleged retaliation. Additionally, the court found that the City provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, which Merithew failed to prove were pretextual.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's enforcement of the statute of limitations, barring claims for actions before June 25, 2019. However, the Supreme Court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Merithew was subjected to an adverse employment action, whether there was a causal connection between his protected conduct and the adverse action, and whether the City's reasons were pretextual. The court reversed the summary judgment in part and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Merithew v. City of Omaha" on Justia Law

Wells Fargo Bank filed a complaint against Astra Genstar Partnership, LLP, seeking a declaratory judgment related to a property purchased at a foreclosure sale. Wells Fargo requested a declaration that all previously held interests in the property, including Astra's interest, were terminated. Astra filed an answer opposing Wells Fargo's request. The district court granted Wells Fargo's motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling that any interest Astra had in the property was terminated by the foreclosure sale and the redemption period's expiration. The court administrator failed to notify the parties of the judgment immediately.The district court entered judgment on December 28, 2023, but the parties did not receive notice until March 15, 2024, after the appeal deadline had passed. Astra appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals on May 13, 2024. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal, stating it was late under Minnesota Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 104 and that Rule 14.01(c)(2) of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice for the District Courts did not apply to appellate courts.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that Rule 14.01(c)(2) does not authorize appellate courts to reinstate a late appeal. However, the court determined that the interests of justice warranted reinstating the appeal because the court administrator failed to transmit notice of the judgment as required by Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 77.04. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision and reinstated Astra's appeal, emphasizing the need to avoid setting a trap for the unwary and to preserve the right to appeal. View "Wells Fargo Bank v. True Gravity Ventures, LLC" on Justia Law

Mary Bennett owns a farm on the U.S.–Mexico border. In 2008, the United States built a segment of the border wall on a portion of her property where it had an easement. In 2020, the government initiated a condemnation action to take that portion of the land and surrounding areas to further build the wall and make related improvements. Bennett argued that the government exceeded the scope of its easement when it built the wall, claiming ownership of the wall and seeking just compensation for its value. She attempted to present expert testimony on the wall's value, which the district court excluded.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas excluded Bennett's expert testimony, concluding that she was not entitled to just compensation for the wall's value. The court interpreted the common-law rule from Searl v. School-Dist. No. 2, which states that fixtures built by a trespasser become part of the estate, to include an exception for trespassers with an objective, good-faith belief in their right to build. The court found that the government had such a belief and thus precluded Bennett from recovering the wall's value. Bennett appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the government acted under its power of eminent domain, which cannot be limited by state trespass laws. The court affirmed that Bennett is entitled to compensation for the land taken but not for the value of the wall, as the government built it at its own expense for a public purpose. The court affirmed the district court's exclusion of the expert testimony and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "United States v. Bennett" on Justia Law

In January 2021, Gregory Steshenko was declared a vexatious litigant in a prior civil action and was subject to a prefiling order requiring him to obtain permission from the presiding judge before filing any new litigation. Despite this, in November 2021, while his appeal in the prior action was pending, Steshenko filed a new civil action against the Foothill-De Anza Community College District and others. The College District filed a notice regarding the prefiling order, and Steshenko objected, claiming the order was stayed pending his appeal. The College District and others moved to have Steshenko declared a vexatious litigant again and to require him to furnish security.The trial court determined that the prefiling order was not stayed on appeal and that Steshenko was required to request leave before filing the new action, which he failed to do. Consequently, the court dismissed the action. Alternatively, the court found Steshenko to be a vexatious litigant again, issued a new prefiling order, required him to furnish security, and dismissed the action when he refused to provide the security.On appeal, Steshenko argued that the judgment of dismissal should be reversed. The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, held that the January 2021 prefiling order remained in effect while on appeal and that the trial court properly dismissed the action based on Steshenko’s failure to obtain permission before filing the action and the denial of permission after the action was filed. The appellate court struck the June 2024 orders that again found Steshenko to be a vexatious litigant and required him to obtain leave before filing new litigation. However, Steshenko continues to be designated as a vexatious litigant and subject to the January 2021 prefiling order. View "Steshenko v. Board of Trustees" on Justia Law