Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In this case, Columbia Legal Services represented farmworkers in a class action against Stemilt AG Services, LLC, alleging forced labor and trafficking. During the litigation, the district court issued a protective order limiting Columbia's use of discovered information outside the case. The order required Columbia to seek court approval before using any discovery materials in other advocacy efforts.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington presided over the initial case. The court issued two protective orders during the discovery process. The first order protected sensitive employment data from the Washington State Employment Security Division. The second order, which is the subject of this appeal, restricted Columbia from using Stemilt's financial and employment records in other advocacy without prior court approval. The district court adopted this order to prevent Columbia from using discovered information outside the litigation, citing concerns about Columbia's intentions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Columbia had standing to appeal the protective order because it directly affected Columbia's ability to use discovered information in its advocacy work. The court found that the district court abused its discretion by issuing a broad and undifferentiated protective order without finding "good cause" or identifying specific harm that would result from public disclosure. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's protective order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court emphasized that discovery is presumptively public and that protective orders require a showing of specific prejudice or harm. View "COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES V. STEMILT AG SERVICES, LLC" on Justia Law

Best Inn Midwest, LLC (Best Inn) owned and operated a hotel in Indianapolis, Indiana, which faced numerous issues, including health code violations and criminal activity. In 2017, Best Inn purchased a commercial property insurance policy from Ohio Security Insurance Company (Ohio Security). The policy excluded coverage for vandalism if the building was vacant for sixty consecutive days or more. Best Inn filed a claim for vandalism to air conditioning units on the hotel’s roof, which Ohio Security denied, citing vacancy. Ohio Security requested information about the hotel's occupancy, which Best Inn failed to provide, leading Ohio Security to file a suit seeking a declaration that the policy did not cover the claim.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted Ohio Security's motion for summary judgment on Best Inn's counterclaim for bad faith. The court found that Best Inn had failed to comply with discovery requests and court orders, leading to a sanction declaring the hotel vacant during the relevant period. This finding was based on Best Inn's repeated failure to provide requested documents and information, despite numerous attempts by Ohio Security to obtain them.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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 imposing sanctions and declaring the hotel vacant. This declaration meant that the insurance policy did not cover the vandalism claim, and thus, Ohio Security was entitled to summary judgment on Best Inn's bad faith counterclaim. The appellate court concluded that the sanctions were appropriate and proportionate to Best Inn's conduct, and there were no remaining disputes as to any material fact. View "Ohio Security Insurance Company v Best Inn Midwest, LLC" on Justia Law

The Idaho Legislature established the Community Partner Grant Program in 2021, using funds from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) to address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on school-aged children. The funds were to be used exclusively for in-person educational and enrichment activities for children aged 5 to 13. In 2023, the Idaho Attorney General received information suggesting that some grant recipients had misused the funds to serve children under the age of five. Consequently, the Attorney General issued civil investigative demands (CIDs) to 34 grant recipients, requesting documentation related to the grant program. The recipients did not comply and instead sought a preliminary injunction in district court to set aside the CIDs.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of Idaho denied the preliminary injunction for 15 grant recipients, requiring them to respond to the CIDs, but granted it for 19 others, concluding that the Attorney General had not shown sufficient reason to believe these recipients had misused the funds. The court also reviewed two declarations in camera and provided redacted versions to the recipients' counsel.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and held that both the Idaho Charitable Assets Protection Act (ICAPA) and the Idaho Charitable Solicitation Act (ICSA) applied to the grant funds, giving the Attorney General authority to issue CIDs. The court determined that the "reason to believe" standard, not probable cause, was sufficient for issuing CIDs. The court found that the district court erred in granting the preliminary injunction to the 19 recipients and remanded the case for further proceedings. Additionally, the court held that the CID issued to Elizabeth Oppenheimer was overly broad and violated her First Amendment right to freedom of association, requiring the district court to reconsider this CID. The court declined to award attorney fees to either party. View "Children's Home Society v. Labrador" on Justia Law

Shawn Bell was charged with several violent crimes. During jury selection, the State used a peremptory challenge to exclude juror 39, prompting an objection from the defense under GR 37, which addresses potential racial or ethnic bias in jury selection. The prosecutor justified the challenge by claiming juror 39 was inattentive, while the defense argued that the COVID-19 mask requirement made it difficult for jurors to follow the questioning. The trial court denied the GR 37 objection, relying on the juror's admission of inattention and the judge's own observations. Bell was subsequently convicted.Bell appealed, and the Washington Court of Appeals reversed his convictions, finding that the trial court had violated GR 37 by allowing the peremptory challenge against juror 39. The appellate court concluded that the trial court's decision was incorrect and warranted a reversal of Bell's convictions.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case and held that a de novo standard of review is required for GR 37 objections. The court emphasized that the analysis must consider whether an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the peremptory challenge. The court found that the trial judge's subjective impressions of juror 39's demeanor were insufficient to justify the challenge. The court also noted that similar responses from other jurors who were not challenged raised concerns about potential bias.The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, concluding that an objective observer could view race as a factor in the State's peremptory challenge against juror 39. The court reversed Bell's convictions and remanded the case for a new trial. View "State v. Bell" on Justia Law

Jacqueline Pilot applied for a promotion with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Kansas City, Missouri. After another candidate was selected, Pilot sued the Secretary of Transportation under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging race, sex, and age discrimination, as well as retaliation for a previous employment discrimination complaint. The district court granted summary judgment to the Secretary.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri reviewed the case and granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary. The court found that Pilot did not provide sufficient evidence to support her claims of discrimination and retaliation. Pilot then appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court applied the burden-shifting framework from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, which is used for claims lacking direct evidence of discrimination or retaliation. The court found that while Pilot made a prima facie case for her claims, the Secretary provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment decision: the FAA hired the highest-ranked candidate based on a standardized hiring process. The court concluded that Pilot failed to show that the Secretary's reason was pretextual. The court noted that the hiring process used a mix of objective and subjective criteria, and the top-ranked candidate was selected based on a standardized rubric. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Secretary, finding no evidence of pretext or discrimination. View "Pilot v. Duffy" on Justia Law

Anderson & Koch Ford, Inc., a Ford dealership in North Branch, Minnesota, operates under a Ford Sales and Service Agreement. In late 2022, Ford announced plans to establish a new dealership in Forest Lake, Minnesota, and to reassign half of Anderson & Koch’s designated sales area to the new dealership. Anderson & Koch filed a lawsuit in state court, alleging violations of the Minnesota Motor Vehicle Sale and Distribution Act (MVSDA), specifically sections 80E.13(k) and (p). Ford removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss the claims.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota partially granted Ford’s motion to dismiss, ruling that Anderson & Koch failed to state a claim under sections 80E.13(k) and (p) regarding the establishment of the new dealership. However, the court allowed Anderson & Koch to challenge the proposed change to its designated sales area under the same sections. Anderson & Koch then appealed the dismissal of its claims related to the new dealership.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that Anderson & Koch could not challenge the establishment of the new dealership under sections 80E.13(k) or (p) of the MVSDA. The court held that the establishment of a new dealership did not modify the existing franchise agreement, as required by section 80E.13(k), nor did it arbitrarily change the dealer’s area of sales effectiveness under section 80E.13(p). The court also noted that Anderson & Koch had dismissed its claims regarding the change to its sales area, leaving only the challenge to the new dealership on appeal. View "Anderson & Koch Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company" on Justia Law

In several Minnesota cities, only members of a pre-approved union can work on municipal construction jobs. Multiple contractors, a carpenter, and a union objected to this requirement, alleging it violated the First Amendment. The contractors, Kaski, Inc.; Nordic Group, Inc.; and Roen Salvage Co., claimed they missed out on lucrative work due to these project-labor agreements. Luke Krhin, a carpenter, and the Christian Labor Association, which has a local chapter in Minnesota, also joined the lawsuit.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota determined that none of the plaintiffs had standing to sue. The court found that the contractors, Krhin, and the Christian Labor Association could not succeed on their First Amendment claim. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court focused on the issue of standing, a jurisdictional requirement. The court found that the contractors did not have standing because the relevant constitutional claims belonged to their employees, not to them. The court also found that Krhin, who opposed joining a pre-approved union, was exempt from the requirement as a supervisor, thus lacking standing. The Christian Labor Association also lacked standing because it failed to identify any members who would have standing to sue in their own right.The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss based on a lack of standing. View "Christian Labor Association v. City of Duluth" on Justia Law

A widow, Lori Olson, individually and as the personal representative of her deceased husband Scott Olson's estate, filed a lawsuit against Huron Regional Medical Center (HRMC), Dr. William Miner, and Thomas Miner, a physician’s assistant, alleging negligence, wrongful death, loss of consortium, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and fraudulent concealment. Scott Olson died at HRMC in January 2020 under the care of Dr. Miner and Thomas Miner. Lori Olson initiated the lawsuit in September 2021.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Beadle County, South Dakota, denied Dr. Miner’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process but later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute. Lori Olson appealed the dismissal, and Dr. Miner filed a notice of review challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss for insufficient service.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case and found that there was verifiable record activity within the year prior to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, including efforts to compile medical records and communication between the parties. The court concluded that the Circuit Court erred in dismissing the case under SDCL 15-11-11 for lack of prosecution, as there was sufficient activity to move the case forward. Additionally, the court found that the delays in the case did not rise to the level of egregiousness required for dismissal under Rule 41(b) and that the Circuit Court did not consider less severe sanctions before dismissing the case.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed the Circuit Court’s decision to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute and affirmed the denial of Dr. Miner’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process, concluding that Dr. Miner was properly served. View "Olson v. Huron Regional Medical Center, Inc." on Justia Law

Pamela J. (Tower) Weinle appealed a divorce judgment from the District Court (Skowhegan), which divided marital property and awarded Alan R. Tower spousal support and attorney fees. Weinle contested the spousal support, property distribution, and attorney fees. Tower died after the judgment and during the appeal process.The District Court awarded Tower $2,000 per month in general spousal support, $500 per month in reimbursement spousal support, and $12,325 in attorney fees. The court found that Weinle had engaged in economic misconduct by purchasing and selling property without Tower's knowledge and failing to comply with discovery obligations, which increased litigation costs. The court also noted that Weinle had a substantial income and financial resources, while Tower had limited income and poor health.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court overruled its previous decision in Panter v. Panter, which required dismissal of an appeal if a party died during its pendency. The court held that the death of a party does not moot the appeal regarding property rights. The court affirmed the District Court's judgment, finding no error in the spousal support award, property distribution, or attorney fees. The court noted that the spousal support obligation ceased upon Tower's death, as the divorce judgment did not specify that the support survived the death of either party. View "Weinle v. Estate of Tower" on Justia Law

Valderra Land Holdings, LLC owns real property encumbered by a performance trust deed held for the benefit of Jenco, LC and others. After Valderra defaulted on its obligations, Jenco sought judicial foreclosure. Valderra counterclaimed, asserting a right to cure its default and requested the court to determine the amount owed. The district court set the payoff amount and directed Jenco to instruct the trustee to reconvey the property upon Valderra’s tender of funds.Valderra tendered the payoff amount, but Jenco did not instruct the trustee to release the trust deed. Instead, Jenco appealed the judgment and moved for a stay of the obligation to reconvey the property under rule 62(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court granted the stay over Valderra’s objection, which argued that the order was injunctive and should be governed by rule 62(c), not 62(b).The Supreme Court of Utah reviewed the case and agreed with Valderra that the district court erred in granting the stay under rule 62(b). The court held that rule 62(b) applies only to stays of orders or judgments to pay money, not injunctive orders, which are governed by rule 62(c). The court found that the order requiring Jenco to instruct the trustee to reconvey the property was injunctive in nature. Consequently, the district court should have considered the motion under rule 62(c), which requires the court to determine whether the conditions for the security of the rights of the adverse party are just.The Supreme Court of Utah reversed the district court’s decision to grant the stay under rule 62(b) and vacated the order rejecting Valderra’s rule 62(i) objection. The court also denied Valderra’s request for appellate attorney fees, as Valderra was not awarded fees in the lower court. View "Jenco v. Valderra Land Holdings" on Justia Law