Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

8fig, Incorporated, a technology company, entered into agreements with several e-commerce merchants (Defendant-Appellants) to purchase projected revenue in exchange for an up-front payment. 8fig alleged that the Defendant-Appellants failed to remit the agreed payments and instead transferred the funds to a religious movement, World Olivet Assembly, closed their bank accounts, and went out of business. 8fig filed a lawsuit under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1964, 1962, and various state and common law claims. The parties filed a Joint Agreed Motion to Administratively Close and Seal Proceedings, which the district court granted, and the case settled quickly.Newsweek Digital, LLC moved to intervene and unseal the judicial record, arguing that the seal hindered its reporting. The district court granted Newsweek’s motion to intervene and unseal, allowing any party to propose redactions. Certain defendants filed proposed redactions, which the district court granted, and denied a motion to extend filing deadlines. The district court proceeding has been unsealed for over a year, except for documents with redacted versions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Newsweek had standing to intervene, as alleged violations of the public right to access judicial records and gather news are cognizable injuries-in-fact. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in unsealing the records, emphasizing the public’s common law right of access to judicial records and the presumption in favor of transparency. The court affirmed the district court’s order granting Newsweek’s motion to intervene and unseal the proceeding. View "8Fig v. Stepup Funny" on Justia Law

Lawrence Marino obtained an 18-month civil harassment restraining order against Mark Alon Rayant in a proceeding where Rayant was not present. Rayant later appeared, arguing he had not received notice of Marino’s restraining order request and that the request was without merit. The trial court terminated the restraining order. Rayant then moved to seal the entire record of the restraining order proceedings, citing concerns that the proceedings had negatively impacted his background checks for job applications and subjected him to increased scrutiny by airport authorities when returning from international travel. The trial court denied the sealing request because Rayant had not made the necessary showing for sealing under the California Rules of Court.Rayant appealed the trial court's decision. He contended that there is no federal constitutional right of public access to records of restraining order proceedings, and therefore the court rules for sealing records, which are based on federal constitutional requirements, are inapplicable. The trial court found that the sealing rules provide an independent, statutory right of public access to court records, creating a broad presumption of public access with only limited exceptions, none of which applied in this case.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that the sealing rules under California Rules of Court apply to the records Rayant sought to seal. The court found that Rayant did not meet the high bar for sealing imposed by those rules, as he did not demonstrate an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access, nor did he show a substantial probability that his interest would be prejudiced if the record was not sealed. The court affirmed the trial court's order denying the motion to seal. View "Marino v. Rayant" on Justia Law

Matthew Cargo, a federal prisoner, attempted to file a notice of appeal after being sentenced on July 20, 2020. He had until August 3, 2020, to file the notice, with a possible extension to September 2, 2020. Cargo, while temporarily held in an Oklahoma jail, prepared the notice on July 22, 2020, and handed it to a correctional officer. However, he incorrectly addressed the envelope, leading to its return by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. Cargo did not learn of the error until November 2024, after which he promptly resent the notice.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois received the notice in November 2024, four years after the deadline. The government moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, and Cargo argued that he had complied with the prison-mailbox rule, which deems a notice of appeal filed when handed to prison officials for mailing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Cargo's addressing error precluded him from benefiting from the prison-mailbox rule. The rule requires that the notice be properly addressed to ensure it reaches the district court. Since Cargo's notice was returned as undeliverable, it did not meet the requirements of the rule. Consequently, the court dismissed Cargo's appeal as untimely, emphasizing that proper addressing is crucial for the prison-mailbox rule to apply. The court also noted that Cargo could have avoided this outcome by instructing his counsel to file the notice of appeal. View "USA v Cargo" on Justia Law

Mario Mancini, an inmate at FCI Sandstone, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for medical malpractice. Mancini alleged that the government caused him permanent injury by negligently delaying necessary medical care. He experienced neck and back pain from a prior workplace injury, which worsened in 2017. Despite reporting increasing pain and numbness, his MRI and subsequent surgery were delayed. Mancini claimed these delays resulted in permanent nerve damage, loss of strength, muscle atrophy, numbness, and pain.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Mancini's FTCA claim. The court found that Mancini's expert affidavit, provided by Dr. Gary Wyard, failed to meet the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 145.682. The affidavit did not adequately define the standard of care, explain how the government deviated from that standard, or establish a causal connection between the delays and Mancini's injuries. The court also excluded Dr. Wyard's testimony under Rule 702 and Daubert, citing factual errors and a lack of methodology in his affidavit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that Dr. Wyard's affidavit did not satisfy the statutory requirements of Minn. Stat. § 145.682. The affidavit lacked specific details about the standard of care and failed to outline a chain of causation between the government's actions and Mancini's injuries. The court also upheld the exclusion of Dr. Wyard's testimony under Rule 702 and Daubert. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice, as Mancini did not correct the deficiencies in the affidavit within the provided safe-harbor period. View "Mancini v. United States" on Justia Law

Samuel Shanks and Taylor Lambert, former employees of the International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers, filed pro se lawsuits against the Union alleging discrimination. Shanks, who worked in accounting for over twenty years, claimed discrimination based on disability, race, color, and sexual orientation, as well as a hostile work environment and retaliation. Lambert, his niece, alleged wrongful termination, retaliation, and discrimination based on race, religion, and gender. Both claimed violations of various civil rights laws, including the D.C. Human Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The Union removed the cases to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Shanks and Lambert appealed the dismissals. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissals in part but appointed amicus curiae to present arguments in favor of claims that were not suited for summary dismissal.The D.C. Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo and concluded that the allegations of racial discrimination related to the Union’s COVID-19 vaccination policy were plausible. The court found that the Union’s two-stage roll-out of the policy disproportionately affected Black employees, who were given less time and fewer resources to comply with the vaccination mandate. The court held that the disparate impact and discriminatory treatment claims based on race were sufficiently pled to survive a motion to dismiss. The court affirmed the dismissal of other claims, including those based on sexual orientation, gender, and religion, as well as Shanks’ hostile work environment claim. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings on the racial discrimination claims. View "Shanks v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers" on Justia Law

Fahmi Ahmed Moharam, a dual United States-Yemeni citizen, frequently travels between the two countries. In 2017, he was denied boarding a flight from Saudi Arabia to the U.S. and learned through the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) redress process that he was on the No Fly List. The government provided minimal information, citing national security concerns, and stated that his designation was based on his activities in Yemen from 2011 to 2017. After petitioning for review, the government informed him that he was no longer on the No Fly List and would not be relisted based on the currently available information.The TSA is mandated by statute to identify individuals who may pose a threat to civil aviation or national security and prevent them from boarding aircraft. The TSA also manages the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP), which allows individuals to appeal their inclusion on the No Fly List. Moharam appealed through TRIP and was initially informed that he was on the list due to concerns about his activities in Yemen. Despite his requests for more information and administrative review, the TSA maintained his status on the list until the government later removed him.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Moharam's removal from the No Fly List rendered his petitions for review moot, as the court could no longer provide effective relief. The court noted that the government’s assurance that Moharam would not be relisted based on the same information addressed the issue of potential recurrence. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitions for lack of jurisdiction, as the relief sought was no longer redressable. View "Moharam v. TSA" on Justia Law

A mother sought to modify an existing child custody order to change the school district her daughter attends after moving to a new residence. The father objected, arguing that changing schools would be disruptive and limit his time with the daughter. Unable to reach an agreement through mediation, the mother petitioned the court to modify the custody decree.The Iowa District Court for Worth County denied the mother's request, determining that changing school districts was not in the daughter's best interests. The mother appealed, and while the appeal was pending, the Iowa Supreme Court decided In re Marriage of Frazier. The Court of Appeals, interpreting Frazier, concluded that the district court lacked authority to hear the mother's petition because she was not seeking to alter the parents' status as joint legal custodians. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling without considering the merits of the mother's petition.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and disagreed with the Court of Appeals' interpretation of Frazier. The Supreme Court held that a court that entered a custody decree has the authority to modify it when requested, even if the modification does not relate to who has legal custody. The Supreme Court found that the district court had the authority to rule on the mother's petition since the decree specified the daughter's school district, and the mother sought to modify that based on a change of circumstances.On de novo review, the Iowa Supreme Court agreed with the district court's determination that changing school districts was not in the daughter's best interests. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals decision and affirmed the district court's order denying the modification petition. View "Venechuk v. Landherr" on Justia Law

The case involves the Mississippi Apartment Association (MAA) and other property owners challenging an ordinance adopted by the Jackson City Council. The ordinance imposed registration and inspection requirements on rental housing units in Jackson. MAA appealed the city council's decision in the Hinds County Circuit Court but did not request a stay of the ordinance's implementation. Subsequently, MAA filed a separate action in the Hinds County Chancery Court seeking injunctions against the ordinance's enforcement, arguing that the planning department's interpretation and enforcement of the ordinance were unlawful.The Hinds County Chancery Court dismissed MAA's claims for lack of jurisdiction, stating that the circuit court had exclusive jurisdiction over the appeal of the city council's decision under Mississippi Code Section 11-51-75. The chancery court found that the circuit court also had pendent jurisdiction over MAA's equitable claims regarding the ordinance's enforcement.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the chancery court's decision. The court held that the circuit court had exclusive jurisdiction over the appeal of the city council's decision and pendent jurisdiction over related claims regarding the ordinance's enforcement. The court emphasized that allowing a separate action in the chancery court could lead to contradictory rulings and confusion. The court also noted that MAA had an adequate remedy at law in the circuit court and could have requested a stay of the ordinance's implementation under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 62. View "Mississippi Apartment Association v. City of Jackson" on Justia Law

A recently enacted Mississippi statute, House Bill 1126, aims to protect minors from harmful online material by requiring digital service providers (DSPs) to verify users' ages, obtain parental consent for minors, limit data collection, and implement strategies to mitigate harmful content exposure. NetChoice, L.L.C., a trade association for internet-focused companies, challenged the statute's constitutionality under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent its enforcement.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted the preliminary injunction, finding that NetChoice was likely to succeed on its claims that the statute was unconstitutional. The court determined that NetChoice had associational standing to bring the suit on behalf of its members and that the statute imposed significant regulatory burdens that could cause financial harm. The Attorney General of Mississippi appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its findings and failed to perform the necessary facial analysis as mandated by the Supreme Court in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court did not conduct the required two-step analysis outlined in Moody. This analysis involves defining the law's scope and determining which applications violate the First Amendment. The Fifth Circuit noted that the district court did not fully assess the range of activities and actors regulated by the statute or the specific regulatory burdens imposed on different DSPs. Consequently, the court vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case to the district court for further factual analysis consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion in Moody and Fifth Circuit precedent. View "NetChoice v. Fitch" on Justia Law

AT&T sought review of a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) forfeiture order, which fined the company $57 million for mishandling customer data in violation of section 222 of the Telecommunications Act. The FCC found that AT&T failed to protect customer proprietary network information (CPNI) and issued the fine after an internal adjudication process. AT&T argued that the FCC's in-house adjudication violated the Constitution by denying it an Article III decisionmaker and a jury trial.The FCC's Enforcement Bureau investigated AT&T following reports of misuse of customer location data by service providers. The Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), proposing the penalty. AT&T responded in writing, contesting the penalty and raising constitutional challenges. The FCC rejected AT&T's arguments and affirmed the penalty, leading AT&T to pay the fine and seek review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit, guided by the Supreme Court's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, agreed with AT&T that the FCC's enforcement procedures violated the Seventh Amendment and Article III. The court found that the FCC's imposition of civil penalties was akin to a common law action for money damages, which traditionally requires a jury trial. The court also determined that the public rights exception did not apply, as the action was closely related to common law negligence and did not fall within the historical categories of non-Article III adjudications.The court concluded that the FCC's process, which allowed for a section 504 trial only after the agency had already adjudicated the matter, did not satisfy the constitutional requirements. As a result, the Fifth Circuit granted AT&T's petition and vacated the FCC's forfeiture order. View "AT&T v. Federal Communications Commission" on Justia Law