Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A child, B.C.B., was born in a car where his parents were living. After being transported to a hospital, both B.C.B. and his mother tested positive for methamphetamine. The El Paso County Department of Human Services conducted a safety assessment and took temporary custody of B.C.B. due to the positive drug test. The Department filed a petition alleging that B.C.B. was dependent or neglected under Colorado law.The El Paso County District Court held an adjudicatory trial, where evidence was presented that B.C.B. had difficulty latching to breastfeed and exhibited symptoms potentially related to methamphetamine exposure. Three pediatricians testified about the potential long-term risks of methamphetamine exposure, although they could not definitively link the symptoms to the drug exposure. The jury found that B.C.B. was born affected by substance exposure and that his health or welfare was threatened by substance use. The trial court adjudicated B.C.B. as dependent or neglected and ordered continued custody with the Department.The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's adjudication, concluding that the Department had not provided sufficient evidence to show that B.C.B. was adversely affected by substance exposure at birth. The majority held that a positive drug test alone was insufficient to establish dependency or neglect under the amended statute.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and concluded that a positive drug test at birth satisfies the first prong of the statute, indicating that the child was affected by substance exposure. The Court also found that the Department provided sufficient evidence to show that B.C.B.'s health or welfare was threatened by substance use, either directly or due to the mother's inability to care for the child properly. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and upheld the jury's finding that B.C.B. was dependent or neglected. View "People ex rel. B.C.B. v. A.B." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between a railroad company and La Plata County over land use changes made by the railroad at its Rockwood Station. The railroad made several modifications to accommodate increased passenger traffic, including enlarging a parking lot and adding portable toilets and tents. The County claimed these changes violated its land use code and demanded compliance or corrective action.The railroad initially sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction in La Plata County District Court, arguing that the County lacked jurisdiction over its operations. While this case was pending, the County petitioned the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for a declaratory ruling that the changes required compliance with the County's land use code. The PUC accepted the petition, and an administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the changes constituted "extensions, betterments, or additions" under the relevant statute, thus requiring compliance with the County's code. The PUC upheld the ALJ's decision, and the district court affirmed the PUC's ruling.The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed the case and addressed several issues raised by the railroad. The court concluded that the PUC had jurisdiction to interpret the relevant land use statute, the County had standing to petition the PUC, and the PUC did not violate the railroad's due process rights. The court also found that the PUC's determination that the changes constituted "extensions, betterments, or additions" was just and reasonable and supported by the evidence. Consequently, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment upholding the PUC's decision. View "Am. Heritage Ry.s v. Colo. Pub. Utils. Comm'n" on Justia Law

The Town of Firestone applied for conditional groundwater rights and an augmentation plan to support its growing water needs. The application included five well fields, but Firestone did not provide specific well locations for three of these fields, instead proposing to use the water court's retained jurisdiction to provide more specific details later. St. Vrain Sanitation District opposed the application, arguing that Firestone's lack of specific well locations made its depletion calculations unreliable and that relying on retained jurisdiction to prove non-injury later was legally impermissible.The District Court for Water Division 1 partially granted St. Vrain's motion to dismiss, finding that Firestone's evidence was insufficient to establish that the proposed well fields would not injure senior water rights holders. The court dismissed without prejudice the claims for the three well fields with unspecified locations and declined to retain jurisdiction, as it could not make a threshold finding of non-injury. The court also allowed St. Vrain to contest the non-injury issue at trial, despite a prior conditional stipulation.The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the water court's decision, holding that the water court correctly evaluated the application on a case-by-case basis and did not create a new bright-line rule requiring completed wells for conditional groundwater rights. The court also upheld the water court's refusal to retain jurisdiction without a non-injury finding and found no abuse of discretion in allowing St. Vrain to contest the non-injury issue. The Supreme Court concluded that the water court's factual findings were supported by the trial record and were not clearly erroneous. View "Town of Firestone v. BCL Colo., LP" on Justia Law

Rick Holloway and John Hoskin entered into a Commercial Sales Agreement to purchase the UXU Resort Ranch from Hidden Creek Outfitters, LLC. The sale included a special use permit from the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, which required a bridge inspection and load test before transfer. Due to the inspection's delay, the parties postponed closing and placed $200,000 in escrow for bridge-related expenses. After inspections, Park County Title released the escrow funds to Hidden Creek without H&H's consent, despite unresolved bridge issues.The District Court of Park County found that Hidden Creek and H&H each breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and Park County Title breached the escrow agreement by releasing funds without H&H's approval. However, the court determined H&H failed to prove actual damages with sufficient certainty, awarding only nominal damages. The court also denied attorney’s fees to all parties.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's findings. The court held that H&H did not prove actual damages because the inspections did not conclusively identify necessary or required repairs. The court also upheld the denial of attorney’s fees, finding no abuse of discretion, as both parties bore some fault in the litigation. The Supreme Court denied any attorney’s fees associated with the appeal. View "Holloway v. Hidden Creek Outfitters, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Khalilah Suluki alleged that her mother, Khadijah Suluki, committed identity theft by opening several credit card accounts in her name without permission, including an account with Credit One Bank, N.A. Upon discovering the alleged fraud, Suluki disputed the account with Credit One and the three major national credit reporting agencies (CRAs). Credit One investigated the dispute multiple times and concluded that the account was legitimate and belonged to Suluki. Suluki filed suit, claiming that Credit One violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation into her dispute.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of Credit One. The court concluded that, regardless of the reasonableness of Credit One's investigation, no reasonable investigation required by the statute would have yielded a different result. The court also found that Suluki did not present any triable issues of fact regarding whether Credit One willfully or negligently violated the FCRA to be liable for damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the accuracy of the information reported and the reasonableness of Credit One's investigations. However, it concluded that no reasonable investigation would have led Credit One to determine that the account was fraudulent or that the information was unverifiable. The court also determined that Suluki could not recover damages because she did not present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Credit One willfully or negligently violated the FCRA. Thus, the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Suluki v. Credit One Bank, NA" on Justia Law

An inmate at Grafton Correctional Institution filed a mandamus action against the warden’s administrative assistant and public-information officer, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the production of public records and an award of statutory damages. The inmate had sent 13 electronic kites requesting copies of public records, focusing on seven kites sent between May 27 and June 2, 2024. The inmate claimed that the requested records were not provided in a timely manner.The case was initially filed in June 2024. The respondent acknowledged receiving the kites within four to seven days and provided some records on September 3 and others on September 5, 2024. The respondent argued that the delay was due to the volume of requests from the inmate, who had made over 50 public-records requests for more than 300 documents since May 2024. The lower court granted an alternative writ, setting a schedule for evidence and briefs. Both parties submitted their evidence and briefs, and the inmate filed several motions, including a motion to strike the respondent’s evidence and motions to proceed to judgment.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and found that the inmate’s mandamus claim was moot because he had received all the requested records. The court also determined that the three-month response time was reasonable given the volume of requests the respondent had to handle. Consequently, the court denied the inmate’s requests for a writ of mandamus and statutory damages, as well as all his motions. View "State ex rel. Robinson v. Wesson" on Justia Law

Giorgio Webster sued Dr. Jeffrey Osguthorpe and Summit Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, PC, for dental malpractice related to a biopsy. On December 8, 2020, a mandatory case evaluation resulted in an award for Webster, which he accepted, but the defendants rejected. The case proceeded to trial after multiple settlement conferences and facilitations. The jury awarded Webster $68,000 in past economic damages and $2.682 million in noneconomic damages, which was later adjusted to $565,000 due to statutory caps. Webster sought costs, statutory interest, and attorney fees as case-evaluation sanctions under the former MCR 2.403(O), which allowed such sanctions before its amendment on January 1, 2022.The Macomb Circuit Court granted Webster's request for sanctions, applying the former rule, and the parties agreed on reasonable attorney fees. The trial court entered an amended judgment reflecting these fees, statutory interest, and costs. The defendants appealed, and the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the sanctions award, stating that the trial court should not have applied the former rule since the verdict was substantially higher than the case-evaluation award, causing no injustice to Webster.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the trial court had the discretion to apply the former MCR 2.403(O) under MCR 1.102, which allows a court to apply former rules if applying the current rules would work an injustice. The Supreme Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, as Webster had relied on the former rule when making strategic decisions, and all relevant actions occurred before the rule change. The Court of Appeals' judgment was reversed in part, and the trial court's award of case-evaluation sanctions was reinstated. View "Webster v. Osguthorpe" on Justia Law

David Keane's employment with Expeditors Hong Kong Limited (Expeditors HK) was terminated on December 11, 2023. Keane subsequently filed a lawsuit against Expeditors HK and Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. (Expeditors US) in the District of Massachusetts, alleging federal and state law claims related to his termination. Expeditors HK is a wholly owned subsidiary of Expeditors US. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and improper venue for the federal law claim.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the claims against Expeditors HK and the non-contract claims against Expeditors US for lack of personal jurisdiction. The contract claims against Expeditors US were dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The court found that Keane failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his assertion that Expeditors HK was an alter ego of Expeditors US.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissals. The appellate court held that the Massachusetts federal district court lacked personal jurisdiction over Expeditors HK. Regarding the claims against Expeditors US, the court found that Keane could not prevail without proving wrongful termination by Expeditors HK, and he failed to allege sufficient facts or legal theories to impute Expeditors HK's actions to Expeditors US. The court concluded that Keane's complaint did not provide adequate grounds to disregard the corporate formalities between Expeditors US and Expeditors HK. View "Keane v. Expeditors International of Washington, Inc." on Justia Law

Four businesses involved in the cultivation, manufacture, possession, and distribution of marijuana within Massachusetts, in compliance with state laws, sued the Attorney General of the United States in 2023. They claimed that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) exceeded Congress's powers under Article I of the U.S. Constitution and violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction to prevent the enforcement of the CSA against their intrastate activities.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich, which upheld the CSA's application to intrastate marijuana activities under the Commerce Clause, was controlling. The District Court also found no precedent for recognizing a fundamental right to cultivate, process, and distribute marijuana, thus rejecting the plaintiffs' substantive due process claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The First Circuit held that the CSA's regulation of intrastate commercial marijuana activities was within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. The court found that Congress had a rational basis for concluding that intrastate marijuana activities substantially affect interstate commerce. Additionally, the court rejected the plaintiffs' substantive due process claim, holding that there is no fundamental right to cultivate, manufacture, possess, and distribute marijuana. The court emphasized that historical practices and recent state legislative trends do not establish such a fundamental right. View "Canna Provisions, Inc. v. Bondi" on Justia Law

An inmate, Kimani E. Ware, sent eight public-records requests to the Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael C. O’Malley, between September and December 2023. Ware sought 21 categories of records, including personnel files and payroll records of O’Malley and two assistant prosecuting attorneys, as well as a list of cases assigned to an assistant prosecutor. O’Malley denied the requests, arguing that the records concerned criminal prosecutions and that Ware, as an inmate, needed to comply with R.C. 149.43(B)(8) before being entitled to the records.Ware filed a mandamus action in April 2024, seeking an order for the production of the records, statutory damages, and court costs. The Supreme Court of Ohio previously granted in part O’Malley’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, leaving nine records requests at issue. O’Malley argued that R.C. 149.43(B)(8) applied, which limits an inmate’s right to obtain records concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution without a judicial finding.The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the personnel files and payroll records of the prosecuting attorneys did not fall under R.C. 149.43(B)(8) and ordered O’Malley to produce these records, subject to proper redactions. The court also ordered O’Malley to produce a list of cases assigned to Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Williamson in 1999 or certify that no such record exists. However, the court denied the writ for the requests seeking specific invoices or pay stubs for work performed by Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Van, as no such records existed.The court denied Ware’s request for statutory damages for the personnel files and payroll records but deferred the determination of statutory damages for the list of cases until O’Malley complied with the limited writ. The court awarded Ware $200 for court costs. View "State ex rel. Ware v. O'Malley" on Justia Law