Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A Kentucky resident purchased a firearm from a local pawn shop and, shortly after, suffered severe injuries when the gun allegedly discharged unexpectedly while the safety was engaged. The gun had been manufactured by a Utah-based company, which sold it to a Texas distributor. The distributor then sold the firearm to a Kentucky merchant, and it eventually reached the plaintiff through a Kentucky pawn shop. The injured party filed a products liability lawsuit in Fayette Circuit Court against both the manufacturer and the pawn shop, alleging the manufacturer’s product caused his injuries.The Fayette Circuit Court initially held the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in abeyance to allow for limited discovery. However, the manufacturer failed to timely respond to discovery requests, only providing responses after being compelled by court order and after significant delay. Despite this, the trial court granted the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss, finding that the manufacturer had not purposefully availed itself of doing business in Kentucky and that exercising personal jurisdiction would not comport with due process. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that due process would be offended, though it found the manufacturer fell within the state’s long-arm statute due to deriving substantial revenue from Kentucky sales.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and held that the evidence was sufficient to show the manufacturer derived substantial revenue from sales in Kentucky and that the plaintiff’s claims arose from those sales, thus satisfying the long-arm statute. However, the Court determined that the manufacturer’s failure to comply with discovery obligations deprived the plaintiff of an adequate opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery. The Court reversed the dismissal in part and remanded the case to the Fayette Circuit Court, instructing it to allow the plaintiff ample opportunity to complete jurisdictional discovery before ruling on personal jurisdiction. View "BRAUN V. BEARMAN INDUSTRIES, LLC" on Justia Law

An employee of a roofing subcontractor was severely injured after falling through an uncovered hole while working on a library roof replacement project. The general contractor had contracted with the property owner to perform the roof work and then subcontracted the roofing portion to the injured worker’s employer. The injured worker received workers’ compensation benefits from his direct employer and subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit against the general contractor, seeking damages for his injuries.In the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, the general contractor asserted statutory employer immunity under Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act, arguing it was immune from tort liability as a statutory employer. The trial court struck the general contractor’s answer and new matter as untimely and granted the injured worker’s motion to preclude the statutory employer defense at trial. The case proceeded to a jury, which found the general contractor negligent and awarded $5 million to the plaintiff. The trial court denied the general contractor’s post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the general contractor. The Superior Court held that the general contractor was the injured worker’s statutory employer and thus immune from tort liability, finding all elements of the statutory employer test satisfied and that the defense was not waivable.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether to overrule prior precedent (Fonner and LeFlar) regarding statutory employer immunity and waiver, and whether the Superior Court properly applied the statutory employer test. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its prior holdings that a general contractor’s statutory employer immunity does not depend on actual payment of workers’ compensation benefits and that the defense is jurisdictional and not waivable. However, it found the Superior Court erred by exceeding its scope of review and remanded the case to the trial court to determine, after appropriate proceedings, whether the general contractor satisfied the disputed elements of the statutory employer test. View "Yoder v. McCarthy Const." on Justia Law

A homebuyer entered into an agreement to purchase a property in Titusville, Pennsylvania, and, before completing the purchase, orally contracted with a home inspector to perform an inspection. The inspector delivered a report that did not disclose any structural or foundational issues. Relying on this report, the buyer purchased the property. The following winter, a burst pipe led to the discovery of significant defects, including the absence of a proper foundation and improper ductwork, which had not been disclosed in the inspection report. The buyer filed suit against the inspector more than two years after the report was delivered, alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Home Inspection Law, breach of contract, and violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.The Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County overruled most of the inspector’s preliminary objections and denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding ambiguity in the statute governing the time to bring actions arising from home inspection reports. The trial court reasoned that the statute could be interpreted as either a statute of limitations or a statute of repose and declined to grant judgment for the inspector. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, holding that the statute in question was a statute of repose, not a statute of limitations, and that all of the buyer’s claims were time-barred because they were filed more than one year after the inspection report was delivered.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether the relevant statutory provision, 68 Pa.C.S. § 7512, is a statute of repose or a statute of limitations. The Court held that the statute is a statute of repose, barring any action to recover damages arising from a home inspection report if not commenced within one year of the report’s delivery, regardless of when the claim accrues. The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. View "Gidor v. Mangus" on Justia Law

A patient alleged that she suffered a neck fracture after falling from her hospital bed while medicated and unattended at a hospital. She filed a complaint against the hospital within the one-year statute of limitations for medical claims, also naming ten John Doe defendants described as unknown medical providers involved in her care. The hospital was served and answered the complaint, but the plaintiff did not obtain summonses or attempt service on the John Doe defendants. Several months later, with the hospital’s consent, she amended her complaint to replace the John Doe defendants with specific individuals and entities, including two doctors and a medical group.The newly named defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims against them were time-barred because they were not named before the statute of limitations expired and the plaintiff had not complied with Ohio Civil Rule 15(D), which governs the naming and service of unknown defendants. The Richland County Court of Common Pleas granted the motion, holding that the statutory 180-day extension for joining additional defendants in medical-claim actions did not apply to defendants who were “obvious” at the outset and that the plaintiff was required to comply with Civil Rule 15(D). The Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the statutory extension applied to any additional defendants not named in the original complaint, regardless of whether their existence was contemplated at filing.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the appellate court’s decision. It held that a plaintiff is not required to comply with Civil Rule 15(D) to name additional defendants in an amended complaint under R.C. 2323.451(D)(1), and that the 180-day extension under R.C. 2323.451(D)(2) is not limited to newly discovered defendants. Because the plaintiff properly amended her complaint to join the additional defendants, the extension applied and her action was timely commenced. View "Lewis v. MedCentral Health Sys." on Justia Law

A married couple owned all shares of a corporation that operated a boat dealership and served as an authorized dealer for a boat manufacturer. After the manufacturer ended its relationship with the dealership, the business failed, leading to foreclosure on its property and the couple’s personal bankruptcies. The couple then sued the manufacturer for intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and promissory fraud, alleging that the manufacturer’s conduct caused the loss of their business and personal assets. A jury awarded them $900,000 in compensatory damages for the loss of equity in the dealership’s real property.Following the verdict, the manufacturer filed post-trial motions and, for the first time at the hearing, challenged the couple’s standing, arguing that the damages related to property owned by the corporation, not the individuals, and that any claims should have been brought derivatively on behalf of the corporation. The Circuit Court for Loudon County agreed, finding the couple lacked “statutory standing” and dismissing the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed, holding that shareholder standing limitations are not jurisdictional and can be waived, and that the manufacturer had forfeited its challenge by raising it too late.The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the Court of Appeals. It held that the couple had constitutional standing to bring their claims, as they alleged injury to their legal rights as shareholders. The Court further held that the trial court erred in applying statutory standing principles, since the claims were not brought as a derivative action. Instead, the issue implicated shareholder standing, which is non-jurisdictional and subject to forfeiture if not timely raised. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Houghton v. Malibu Boats, LLC" on Justia Law

Isaac Contreras, a criminally committed patient at the Arizona State Hospital, was confined in an isolation cell for 665 days under the hospital’s “Administrative Separation” policy after a series of behavioral incidents. Emmanuel Walker, acting as Contreras’s guardian, filed suit in Arizona Superior Court against the State of Arizona and several officials, alleging that Contreras’s confinement violated his rights under both state and federal law. The complaint included two federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and five state law claims, including one under Arizona Revised Statutes § 36-516, which protects the rights of seriously mentally ill persons.After the case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona based on federal question jurisdiction, the State moved for judgment on the pleadings on the § 36-516 claim. The district court granted the motion, dismissing that claim, and did not enter partial judgment under Rule 54(b). To expedite appellate review of this dismissal, the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all remaining claims, both state and federal, with prejudice. The district court then dismissed the entire case, and Walker appealed the dismissal of the state law claim.While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, which held that if a plaintiff eliminates all federal claims after removal, the federal court loses jurisdiction and must remand the case to state court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a joint stipulation of dismissal functions the same as an amendment for jurisdictional purposes. The court concluded that the district court lost jurisdiction before entering final judgment and was required to remand the remaining state law claim to the Arizona Superior Court. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instructions to reopen and remand the state law claim. View "WALKER V. STATE OF ARIZONA" on Justia Law

Edward Skorick, who has a long history of sex offenses dating back to 1980, was incarcerated and later civilly committed as a sexually dangerous individual in North Dakota. After his transfer to the state hospital in 2018, he was committed under state law in 2019. Skorick has previously petitioned for discharge from commitment, with mixed results on appeal, including a remand due to evidentiary issues and subsequent affirmances of continued commitment. In August 2024, Skorick again sought discharge, prompting an annual evaluation by a state-appointed psychologist, who recommended continued commitment. Skorick also requested an independent evaluation, but that expert did not testify or submit a report.The District Court of Burleigh County held a discharge hearing, where only the state’s expert, Dr. Byrne, testified. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that Skorick remained a sexually dangerous individual with serious difficulty controlling his behavior, citing his diagnoses, risk assessments, recent behavioral infractions, lack of treatment participation, and the likelihood that his behavior would worsen outside a controlled environment. The court also drew a negative inference from Skorick’s failure to present testimony from his independent examiner.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the district court’s decision under a modified clearly erroneous standard. The Supreme Court held that the district court’s findings were sufficient and supported by clear and convincing evidence. The court distinguished Skorick’s case from others where limited infractions or lack of treatment progress were insufficient to show serious difficulty controlling behavior, emphasizing Skorick’s ongoing behavioral issues and refusal to participate in treatment. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s order denying Skorick’s petition for discharge. View "Interest of Skorick" on Justia Law

Puerto Rico Telephone Company (PRTC) sought to confirm an arbitration award against WorldNet Telecommunications in federal court under section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). PRTC relied on then-existing First Circuit precedent, which allowed federal courts to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over such applications if the underlying dispute involved a federal question. After the district court dismissed PRTC’s action for lack of Article III standing, PRTC appealed.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed the case, finding that PRTC had not shown the necessary injury-in-fact to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution. PRTC then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. While the appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court decided Badgerow v. Walters, which held that federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over applications to confirm or vacate arbitration awards under sections 9 and 10 of the FAA, except in circumstances not present in this case. PRTC requested that the First Circuit vacate the district court’s judgment and direct dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, so that PRTC could pursue relief in the Commonwealth courts. WorldNet argued that the First Circuit should instead affirm the district court’s dismissal on standing grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that, in light of Badgerow v. Walters, federal courts do not have subject-matter jurisdiction over PRTC’s application to confirm the arbitration award under section 9 of the FAA. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court did not address the standing issue. View "Puerto Rico Telephone Co. v. Worldnet Telecommunications, LLC" on Justia Law

The petitioner submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) to the New York City Department of Education (DOE), seeking all emails exchanged between the DOE and a specific domain name over a period from April 2021 to August 2022. The DOE responded that the request did not "reasonably describe" the records because it could not conduct an effective search with reasonable effort, citing technical difficulties in searching its vast email database. The DOE asked the petitioner to narrow the request, but when the petitioner declined, the DOE treated the request as withdrawn.On administrative appeal, the DOE maintained that the request was not reasonably described, as its electronic searches failed to execute due to the large number of email accounts. The petitioner then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, seeking a court order for the DOE to provide the requested records. The Supreme Court denied the petition, and the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed, holding that the request did not meet the statutory requirement of being "reasonably described" because the DOE could not retrieve the documents through a reasonable electronic search.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that the lower courts and the DOE had improperly conflated the requirement that a request "reasonably describe" the records with the separate requirement that an agency retrieve records if it can do so with reasonable effort. The Court clarified that a request is reasonably described if the agency understands what is sought and knows where to look, regardless of the effort required to retrieve it. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remanded the matter to the DOE for a new determination under the correct legal standard, requiring separate consideration of whether the request was reasonably described and whether the records can be retrieved with reasonable effort. View "Wagner v New York City Dept. of Education" on Justia Law

In 1991, the predecessor to the plaintiffs conveyed land to the United States in a land exchange but retained certain water rights that could only be accessed through the conveyed property, now managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The conveyance documents did not mention these water rights or provide any right of access. Over the years, the plaintiffs and their predecessors sought permits from the Forest Service to access and develop the water rights, but the agency repeatedly expressed concerns about environmental impacts and indicated it had the authority to deny access. In 2010, the Forest Service formally opposed the plaintiffs’ efforts to maintain the water rights in state court, asserting it would not grant the necessary land use authorization.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under the Quiet Title Act (QTA) and the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA). The court found the QTA claim time-barred by the statute’s twelve-year limitations period, reasoning that the plaintiffs or their predecessors were on notice of the government’s adverse claim well before the suit was filed in 2022. The court also dismissed the DJA claim, holding it was essentially a quiet title claim subject to the same limitations period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Tenth Circuit held that the QTA claim was untimely because, by 2006 at the latest, the Forest Service had asserted exclusive control sufficient to put the plaintiffs on notice of its adverse claim, causing the limitations period to expire before the suit was filed. The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction over two of the plaintiffs’ requests for declaratory relief and that the third, alleging a taking, was not ripe because the plaintiffs had not first sought compensation under the Tucker Act. View "Purgatory Recreation I v. United States" on Justia Law