Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Nicholas Queen, a former federal prisoner, filed a lawsuit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging that prison officials physically assaulted him in January 2019. The incident occurred when four correctional officers woke Queen up in his cell due to a supposed medical emergency. The parties dispute the events that followed, with the government claiming that Queen assaulted the officers, while Queen alleges that the officers physically attacked him without provocation. Following the incident, Queen complained of various physical pains, which he associated with the assault. However, prison medical officials dismissed his complaints, suggesting over-the-counter pain medication would suffice. After his release from prison, Queen was diagnosed with chronic back and right hip pain, which a medical doctor confirmed was severe enough to prevent him from working.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The United States moved for the case to be dismissed at the summary judgment stage, arguing that Queen's injuries were de minimis and therefore insufficient to support an FTCA assault claim against a prison officer. The magistrate judge agreed with this argument and recommended dismissal. The district judge adopted this recommendation and dismissed Queen's case.Upon appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the court found that the district court had erred in its decision. The appellate court noted that the de minimis injury test applied to constitutional claims does not apply to an injury alleged under Louisiana tort law, which does not impose a de minimis injury bar to tort claims. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Queen v. United States" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a patient, Tommy Harris, who contracted bacterial sepsis due to repeated infections from his dialysis treatment at a clinic in Belleville, Illinois. Harris filed a malpractice lawsuit against the operators of the clinic and later included a claim against Durham Enterprises, Inc., the janitorial company responsible for cleaning the facility. The case primarily concerns Durham’s insurance coverage. Durham submitted the lawsuit to Ohio Security Insurance Company, its insurer, which denied coverage based on the insurance policy’s exclusion for injuries caused by fungi or bacteria. Harris and Durham then negotiated an agreement in which Durham promised not to mount a defense and Harris promised to seek recovery only from the insurer. The state trial judge granted a motion to sever Harris's claim against Durham and set it for a bench trial. The judge held a short, uncontested bench trial and entered judgment against Durham for more than $2 million.Ohio Security was not a party to the state court proceedings and the insurance policy was not in the record. However, the consent judgment includes findings on insurance issues, notably, that the insurer breached its duty to defend and is estopped from asserting any policy defenses. After the judgment became final, Harris filed an amended complaint purporting to add Ohio Security as a defendant. Ohio Security removed the action to federal court and sought a declaration of its coverage obligations. The district court held that the bacteria exclusion precludes coverage.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Harris and Durham jointly appealed, challenging the no-coverage ruling but also raising a belated challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine. The court found the jurisdictional argument meritless, as the Rooker–Feldman doctrine does not block federal jurisdiction over claims by nonparties to state-court judgments. The court also affirmed the district court's ruling that the policy’s bacteria exclusion precludes coverage for this loss. View "Mitchell v. Durham Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a fatal collision that occurred in May 2016 when Lyle Lima, who was legally blind, drove his truck into a horse-drawn hay trailer on a highway, resulting in the death of one passenger and injuries to others. In April 2015, a doctor at Dakota Eye Institute had declared Lima legally blind and instructed him not to drive. In April 2016, another doctor from the same institute, Dr. Briana Bohn, examined Lima and advised him not to drive at night and only minimally during the day, specifically avoiding highways. The plaintiffs, injured parties and their representatives, claimed that Dr. Bohn was liable for medical malpractice as Lima's eyesight was still below the minimum vision standards required to operate a vehicle in North Dakota.The plaintiffs initially filed a suit against the defendants, which was dismissed by the district court. However, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed and remanded the decision. On remand, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case showing a breach of duty and that Dr. Bohn did not proximately cause Lima’s economic injuries. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that no reasonable jury could find Dr. Bohn proximately caused Lyle Lima’s injury.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Dr. Bohn had clearly instructed Lima not to drive on highways, and the accident had occurred on a highway. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to present competent admissible evidence to raise an issue of fact, and thus, the district court had correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Cichos v. Dakota Eye Institute, P.C." on Justia Law

Two consumers, Tanethia Holden and Mark Mayer, entered into separate purchase agreements for timeshares with Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc. Both stopped making monthly payments and considered their agreements to be canceled. However, Holiday disagreed and reported their debts to Experian, a consumer reporting agency. After unsuccessful attempts to resolve their disputes with Holiday, both Holden and Mayer filed individual actions under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), alleging that Holiday inaccurately reported that they owed debts and failed to reasonably investigate their disputes.The District Courts granted summary judgment for Holiday in both cases, finding the alleged inaccuracies were legal disputes and therefore not actionable under the FCRA. The courts reasoned that a plaintiff asserting a claim against a furnisher for failure to conduct a reasonable investigation cannot prevail on the claim without demonstrating that had the furnisher conducted a reasonable investigation, the result would have been different; i.e., that the furnisher would have discovered that the information it reported was inaccurate or incomplete.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower courts' decisions, but for a different reason. The court held that whether the alleged inaccuracy is factual or legal is beside the point. Instead, what matters is whether the alleged inaccuracy was objectively and readily verifiable. In this case, it was not. Thus, Mayer and Holden had no actionable FCRA claims. The court declined to impose a bright-line rule that only purely factual or transcription errors are actionable under the FCRA. Instead, it held that in determining whether a claimed inaccuracy is potentially actionable under the FCRA, a court must determine whether the information in dispute is 'objectively and readily verifiable.' View "Tanethia Holden v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Incorporated" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between GeLab Cosmetics LLC, a New Jersey-based online nail polish retailer, and Zhuhai Aobo Cosmetics, a China-based nail polish manufacturer. The founders of GeLab, Xingwang Chen and Shijian Li, are both Chinese citizens. The dispute centers around the ownership of GeLab and allegations of trade secret theft. According to Chen, he and Li founded GeLab with Chen owning 60% and Li 40%. They entered a joint venture with Zhuhai, which was supposed to invest in GeLab for an 80% ownership stake. However, Chen alleges that Zhuhai never sent the money and instead began using low-quality materials for GeLab's products, selling knock-off versions under its own brand, and fraudulently claiming majority ownership of GeLab. Zhuhai, on the other hand, asserts that Chen was its employee and that it owns 80% of GeLab.The dispute first began in China, where Li sued Chen for embezzlement. Chen then sued Li, Zhuhai, and Zhuhai's owners in New Jersey state court, alleging that he had a 60% controlling interest in GeLab and that Zhuhai had no ownership interest. The state defendants counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment that Zhuhai owns 80% of GeLab. GeLab then filed a second action in New Jersey against Li alone. The state court consolidated the two cases.While the New Jersey proceedings were ongoing, GeLab filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Zhuhai and its owners, alleging violations of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Illinois Trade Secrets Act. The defendants responded that Zhuhai owns GeLab and that it cannot steal trade secrets from itself. The district court stayed the federal case, citing the doctrine of Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, reasoning that judicial economy favors waiting for the New Jersey court to determine who owns the company. GeLab appealed the stay.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to stay the proceedings. The court found that the federal and state cases were parallel as they involved substantially the same parties litigating substantially the same issues. The court also found that exceptional circumstances warranted abstention, with at least seven factors supporting the district court's decision. These factors included the inconvenience of the federal forum, the desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation, the order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the concurrent fora, the source of governing law, the adequacy of state-court action to protect the federal plaintiff's rights, the relative progress of state and federal proceedings, and the availability of concurrent jurisdiction. View "GeLab Cosmetics LLC v. Zhuhai Aobo Cosmetics Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

This case revolves around an employment dispute where Renee Vines sued his former employer, O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), alleging causes of action for race- and age-based discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. A jury found in his favor on his causes of action for retaliation and failure to prevent retaliation, but against him on his other causes of action. Vines moved for statutory attorneys’ fees, which the trial court granted but awarded only a portion of the requested amount. Vines appealed, and the appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in its determination of the fees.The trial court had initially awarded Vines a reduced amount of attorneys’ fees, based on its determination that Vines's unsuccessful discrimination and harassment causes of action were not closely related to or factually intertwined with his successful retaliation causes of action. Vines appealed this decision, and the appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in its determination. On remand, the trial court awarded Vines a significantly larger amount in fees.O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, appealed from the order denying its motion to vacate the renewal of judgment, challenging only the amount of interest on the award of attorneys’ fees. O’Reilly argued that, because the appellate court's decision in the prior appeal was a reversal, not a modification, of the trial court’s initial order, interest on the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded should run from the date of the second order, not the first. The appellate court agreed with O’Reilly, reversed the order denying O’Reilly’s motion to vacate the renewed judgment, and directed the trial court to grant the motion. View "Vines v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises" on Justia Law

In February 2022, Workers United sought to represent 90 employees at a Starbucks Reserve Roastery in Seattle. Due to rising COVID-19 cases, the Regional Director ordered a mail-ballot election, which took place in April 2022. Starbucks refused to recognize and bargain with the union, arguing that the Regional Director should have ordered an in-person election. The Regional Director overruled Starbucks' objection and certified the election results. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that Starbucks' refusal to recognize and bargain with the union constituted unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act.The NLRB's decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Starbucks argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the enforcement application because the NLRB had severed the question of whether to adopt a compensatory remedy. The court rejected this argument, holding that the NLRB's order was final and reviewable under 29 U.S.C. § 160(e).Starbucks also claimed that the Regional Director abused his discretion by ordering a mail-ballot election instead of an in-person one. The court rejected this argument as well, holding that the Regional Director had correctly applied the NLRB's own law in deciding to hold a mail-ballot election. The court affirmed the NLRB's finding that Starbucks had violated Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to bargain. The court granted the NLRB's application for enforcement of its order directing Starbucks to recognize and bargain with the union. View "NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. SIREN RETAIL CORPORATION DBA STARBUCKS" on Justia Law

A group of developers, collectively referred to as "The Preserve," entered into an agreement in 2011 to purchase land in Richmond, Rhode Island, with the intention of operating an outdoor shooting range and gun club. The town council and planning board initially supported the project, but a subsequent zoning ordinance amendment prohibited such uses. The Preserve was not notified of these changes. In 2016, a new zoning district was created, once again permitting indoor and outdoor shooting ranges. The Preserve claimed that the two-year delay caused substantial revenue loss. They also alleged that the town imposed arbitrary fees, delayed the approval process, and engaged in other discriminatory practices that increased their costs and hindered their development efforts.The Superior Court dismissed The Preserve's claims for violations of substantive due process, tortious interference with contract and prospective business advantages, civil liability for crimes and offenses, and a violation of the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute. The court found that the claims were either barred by the statute of limitations or failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. The court held that the claims for civil liability for crimes and offenses and civil RICO were barred by a three-year statute of limitations because they were considered torts. The court also found that the statute of limitations was not tolled for the tortious interference claims, as the harm allegedly present was merely the consequence of separate and distinct acts that had occurred prior to the final approval of the land development for the resort. Therefore, all of The Preserve's claims were time-barred. View "The Preserve at Boulder Hills, LLC v. Kenyon" on Justia Law

A landowner in Blaine County, Idaho, John Hastings Jr., made unauthorized alterations to the Big Wood River. The Idaho Department of Water Resources (the Department) issued a notice of violation to Hastings and ordered him to cease all unauthorized work and submit a plan for river restoration. Hastings and the Department entered into a consent order, which required Hastings to pay a civil penalty and submit a restoration plan. However, the Department rejected Hastings' proposed restoration plans. Hastings then filed a petition for a hearing to express his disagreement with the terms of the Department's conditional approval for a permit.The Department initiated an administrative proceeding against Hastings, and later filed a counterclaim in Hastings's district court action seeking specific performance, which would require Hastings to comply with the Consent Order. Hastings asserted that the Department's enforcement action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Idaho Code section 42-3809. The district court granted summary judgment to the Department on the statute of limitations issue, and Hastings appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Department's enforcement action was not time-barred by the statute of limitations under Idaho Code section 42-3809. The court found that the earliest possible date that the Department “ought to have reasonably known” that Hastings did not intend to comply with the Consent Order was when he filed the underlying declaratory judgment action. Until then, Hastings was in compliance with the Consent Order and had given every indication that he was attempting to remain in compliance. Therefore, the Department was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on this issue. View "Hastings v. IDWR" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over unpaid rent for a department store in an Illinois mall. The store was operated by CPS Partnership, which leased the retail space from WEC 98C-3 LLC. Saks Inc. guaranteed that it would pay the rent if CPS could not. However, when CPS stopped paying rent, Saks did not make any payments to WEC. This led to WEC defaulting on its mortgage, and the property was purchased by 4 Stratford Square Mall Holdings, LLC (“Stratford”) at a foreclosure auction. Initially, WEC sued Saks for damages. Later, Stratford intervened with its own claim for damages. The district court ruled only on Stratford’s claim for unpaid rent, finding that it was entitled to payment from Saks.The district court's decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Saks argued that Stratford lacked standing to sue, that the district court erred in certifying its judgment for immediate appeal, and that the district court erred in rejecting Saks’s affirmative defenses. The appellate court found that Stratford did have standing to sue Saks, and the district court properly certified its judgment for appeal. On the merits, the appellate court concluded that Saks could not mount any of its desired defenses as it had waived its right to present affirmative defenses to liability in the guaranty that it signed. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "WEC 98C-3 LLC v. SFA Holdings Inc." on Justia Law