Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The petitioner, Jay Folse, purchased real property tax liens on two properties in Cabell County, West Virginia, in September 2021. He provided the necessary information to the respondents, G. Russell Rollyson, Jr., and Mark A. Hunt, to issue notices to redeem to the previous owners. However, some notices were returned as undeliverable. The respondents requested additional addresses and funds for personal service, which the petitioner did not provide. Instead, he filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Cabell County to compel the issuance of tax deeds.The circuit court dismissed the petition, stating that a writ of mandamus was required to compel the issuance of the tax deeds. The petitioner appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), which affirmed the circuit court's decision, relying on the precedent set in Lemley v. Phillips, which required a writ of mandamus for such relief.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found that the ICA erred in its reliance on Lemley. The court noted that significant statutory changes had occurred since Lemley, providing a statutory remedy for compelling the issuance of notices to redeem and tax deeds. The court held that a writ of mandamus does not lie to compel the deputy commissioner to execute a deed for land purchased at a delinquent tax sale, as the remedy provided by West Virginia Code § 11A-3-60 is exclusive.The Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the ICA's decision and remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings to determine whether the petitioner satisfied all necessary requirements for the issuance of the tax deeds. The court emphasized the need for factual and legal determinations to be made by the circuit court in the first instance. View "Folse v. Rollyson" on Justia Law

S.W., a minor, was placed with foster parents A.E. and Ann.E. by the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families (CYF) shortly after her birth in September 2020. In August 2022, CYF filed a petition to remove S.W. from the foster parents' home. The foster parents attended the hearing but did not seek to intervene. The trial court granted CYF's petition, and S.W. was placed with another foster family. The foster parents later filed a motion to intervene, which the trial court denied, stating they did not have standing as they had not requested S.W.'s return and had not achieved the status of prospective adoptive parents.The foster parents appealed to the Superior Court, which vacated the trial court's order and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the foster parents had standing as prospective adoptive parents based on the precedent set in Mitch v. Bucks County Children and Youth Social Services Agency. However, the Superior Court panel was divided, with one judge expressing doubts about the standing of prospective adoptive parents under the current law and another judge suggesting legislative changes to grant standing to all foster parents.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and determined that the issue of standing for prospective adoptive parents was moot, as the foster parents had withdrawn their motion to intervene and for S.W.'s return. Despite this, the court addressed the substantive issue due to its public importance. The court concluded that the legislative enactment of 42 Pa.C.S. § 6336.1, which states that foster parents and preadoptive parents do not have legal standing in dependency proceedings unless they have been awarded legal custody, abrogated the judicially created standing for prospective adoptive parents established in Mitch. The court reversed the Superior Court's decision, holding that preadoptive parents without legal custody do not have standing in dependency proceedings. View "In the Interest of: S.W." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Republic Technologies (NA), LLC and Republic Tobacco, L.P. manufacture and market OCB brand organic hemp rolling papers, while defendant BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP (HBI) markets RAW brand rolling papers. Republic sued HBI in 2016 for a declaration that OCB’s trade dress did not infringe RAW’s trade dress and later added false advertising claims. HBI counterclaimed, alleging that OCB’s trade dress infringed RAW’s trade dress. A jury trial in 2021 resulted in a mixed verdict, and the district court issued a permanent injunction against some of HBI’s advertising practices.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found HBI liable under Illinois law for false advertising but not under the federal Lanham Act. The jury also found that OCB’s trade dress for its 99-cent promotional pack infringed RAW’s trade dress, but not the full-priced pack. Republic’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial were denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in responding to the jury’s question about the definition of “consumer” and in denying Republic’s motion for a new trial. The court also upheld the jury’s finding of trade dress infringement, noting that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict. Additionally, the court affirmed the district court’s permanent injunction, rejecting HBI’s arguments that the injunction was vague, overbroad, and improperly applied nationwide. The court concluded that the injunction was appropriately tailored to provide complete relief to Republic. View "Republic Technologies (NA), LLC v BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP" on Justia Law

The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) requested records from the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). PILF sought documents related to a "glitch" in the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's system that allowed ineligible persons to register to vote. The Secretary denied the request, leading PILF to file a lawsuit claiming an informational injury due to the denial of access to the records.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania initially dismissed the suit for lack of statutory notice but found that PILF had standing based on an informational injury. After PILF provided the required notice and refiled the suit, the District Court granted and denied parts of both parties' summary judgment motions, ruling that PILF was entitled to some records but not others. The District Court did not reassess PILF's standing in light of the Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion v. Ramirez.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that PILF lacked standing. The court held that PILF did not demonstrate a concrete harm or adverse effects from the denial of information, as required by TransUnion. The court emphasized that PILF's inability to study and analyze the records or produce educational materials did not constitute a concrete injury related to the NVRA's purpose of increasing voter participation. Consequently, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court's orders and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it. View "The Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

An elderly woman with severely impaired cognitive functioning was a resident at a skilled nursing facility. While an employee was helping her shower, the employee took a personal video call and propped her phone in a way that displayed the resident’s nude body to the caller. The resident’s conservator sued the facility for invasion of privacy. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the facility, and the plaintiff appealed. During the appeal, the resident died, and her estate was substituted as the plaintiff.The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that the complaint stated a valid claim for invasion of privacy based on intrusion upon seclusion and that the claim did not abate upon the resident’s death. The defendant facility was granted permission to appeal on the issue of abatement.The Supreme Court of Tennessee reviewed the case and held that under Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-5-102, a cause of action for invasion of privacy based on intrusion upon seclusion does not abate upon the death of the person whose privacy was invaded. The court determined that the statutory exception for “wrongs affecting the character of the plaintiff” did not apply to this case. Therefore, the court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that the claim for intrusion upon seclusion did not abate upon the resident’s death and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Jones v. Life Care Centers of America" on Justia Law

LaTonya Jackson, a former patient services coordinator at Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc., was terminated in October 2022. She filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in May 2021, alleging race, age, and disability discrimination, as well as retaliation. The EEOC issued a right to sue letter on May 5, 2023. Jackson filed a complaint against Hennepin Healthcare on August 4, 2023, alleging violations of Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). She also initially sued a supervisor, Duang See, but later withdrew that claim.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Jackson's complaint as untimely. The court found that the complaint was filed one day past the ninety-day deadline following the issuance of the right to sue letter. Additionally, the court concluded that Jackson failed to state a claim and had not properly exhausted administrative remedies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal, agreeing that Jackson's complaint was filed on August 4, 2023, one day after the deadline. The court found no evidence to support Jackson's claim that a computer glitch caused the delay. The court also declined to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling, noting that Jackson had adequate notice of the deadline, was represented by counsel, and there was no misconduct by the defendant or misleading action by the court. The court emphasized that equitable tolling is reserved for circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control, which did not apply in this case. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Jackson v. Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc." on Justia Law

David O’Connell filed a class action lawsuit against the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) for fraudulent solicitation of donations. O’Connell alleged that USCCB misled donors about the use of funds collected through the Peter’s Pence Collection, which were purportedly for emergency assistance but were instead used for investments and other purposes. O’Connell claimed that if he had known the true use of the funds, he would not have donated.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied USCCB’s motion to dismiss the case, which was based on the church autonomy doctrine. The District Court found that O’Connell’s claims raised a secular dispute that could be resolved using neutral principles of law, without delving into religious doctrine. The court emphasized that it would not address purely religious questions if they arose during litigation.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed USCCB’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating that the collateral order doctrine did not apply. The court held that the church autonomy defense could be adequately reviewed on appeal after a final judgment, and that the denial of the motion to dismiss was not conclusive or separate from the merits of the case. The court emphasized that the church autonomy doctrine does not provide immunity from suit but serves as a defense to liability. The appeal was dismissed, and the case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. View "O'Connell v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops" on Justia Law

Accuracy in Media (AIM) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) seeking records about American service members who were prisoners of war (POWs) or missing in action (MIA) from the Vietnam War and potentially still alive in Laos or Vietnam. The CIA conducted a search using specific terms but did not find any responsive records. AIM challenged the adequacy of the CIA's search, arguing that the search terms were insufficient.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the CIA, concluding that the search terms used by the CIA were reasonably likely to yield the requested records if they existed. The court also noted that the plaintiffs' evidence did not significantly suggest that the requested files were in the CIA's current operational files.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and found that the CIA's search terms were inadequate. The court noted that the search terms omitted key terms such as "Laos," "live sighting," "imagery," "reconnaissance," and "rescue," which were relevant to the FOIA request. The court also found that the CIA did not adequately explain why certain terms were used and others were omitted. The court held that the CIA failed to show beyond material doubt that its search was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the CIA and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, requiring the CIA to either conduct a new search or provide a supplemental affidavit with adequate search terms and explanations. View "Hall v. CIA" on Justia Law

Yadira Ordonez, individually and as mother and next friend of her minor daughter, S.C.O., sued Capitol Farmers Market, Inc. (CFMI) in the Montgomery Circuit Court seeking damages for injuries S.C.O. sustained from hot soup purchased at Capitol International Market. CFMI moved for summary judgment, claiming it did not operate the market. Ordonez opposed the motion and requested more time for discovery. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of CFMI, and Ordonez appealed.The trial court entered summary judgment for CFMI, finding that CFMI did not operate the grocery store or the deli where the incident occurred. Ordonez argued that more discovery was needed, particularly the deposition of CFMI's owner, John Yim, to test the veracity of his statements. The trial court denied Ordonez's motion for a continuance to conduct further discovery and granted summary judgment to CFMI.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and found that the trial court exceeded its discretion in denying Ordonez's motion for a continuance under Rule 56(f) to take Yim's deposition. The court noted that the health department records and other evidence raised questions about CFMI's assertions that it had no employees and did not operate the grocery store or deli. The court concluded that Yim's deposition was critical to Ordonez's opposition to the summary judgment motion. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ordonez v. Capitol Farmers Market, Inc." on Justia Law

In December 2021, Officer Shelton Davis of the Montgomery Police Department, while pursuing a fleeing suspect, collided with Madilyn Shuford's vehicle at an intersection in Montgomery. Officer Davis was responding to a woman's plea for help, who claimed a man was trying to kill her. The suspect, Eugene Osborne Jr., fled in a vehicle, prompting Officer Davis to pursue him with activated lights and sirens. During the pursuit, Officer Davis slowed down at a red light but collided with Shuford's vehicle when she pulled into the intersection.Shuford sued the City of Montgomery and Officer Davis, alleging negligence and wanton conduct, and claimed the City was vicariously liable. The City and Officer Davis moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity under § 6-5-338, Ala. Code 1975, and Ex parte Cranman. They provided evidence, including Officer Davis's affidavit and body camera footage, showing he was performing his duties with activated lights and sirens. Shuford opposed, arguing Officer Davis did not use proper signals and took unreasonable risks.The Montgomery Circuit Court denied the summary judgment motion without explanation. The City and Officer Davis petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus to vacate the denial and grant summary judgment based on immunity.The Supreme Court of Alabama granted the petition, holding that Officer Davis was entitled to immunity as he was performing his law enforcement duties and exercising judgment. The court found no substantial evidence from Shuford to refute this. Consequently, the City was also entitled to immunity. The trial court was directed to enter summary judgment in favor of the City and Officer Davis. View "Shuford v. City of Montgomery" on Justia Law