Civil Procedure - Justia Case Law Summaries

Guzman v. Super. Ct.

2026-09-04T11:02:37-08:00

A jury found that the defendant was negligent and awarded the plaintiff over $18.5 million in damages, which, after adding costs and interest, resulted in a judgment of more than $20 million. To stay enforcement of this judgment pending appeal, the defendant was required to post a bond under California law. The defendant, despite having about $1.75 million in assets, asserted that he could not obtain a bond in the statutorily required amount, which was over $30 million, and requested the trial court to waive or reduce the bond to the limit of his insurance policy ($1.25 million). The Superior Court of Sacramento County considered the defendant’s financial declaration and a supplemental declaration detailing the costs and collateral requirements for various bond levels from a bond broker. After evaluating these submissions and hearing arguments, the trial court found the defendant qualified for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 995.240 and ordered him to post a reduced bond of $1.25 million. The plaintiff then filed a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition, challenging the trial court’s interpretation of “indigent” within the statute and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the bond reduction. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, reviewed the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that “indigent” under section 995.240 is not limited to those in extreme poverty but includes any person unable to obtain sufficient sureties, considering access to the judicial process. The trial court retains discretion to weigh all relevant factors, including the nature of the obligation and the potential harm to the beneficiary. The appellate court also found no evidentiary error in the trial court’s consideration of the defendant’s declarations. Accordingly, the petition was denied, and the trial court’s order was affirmed. View "Guzman v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Giffords v. FEC

2026-09-04T07:01:15-08:00

A nonprofit organization dedicated to gun violence prevention filed several administrative complaints with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in 2018, alleging violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act by two entities associated with a national advocacy group. After the FEC failed to act within the statutory 120-day period, the nonprofit filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking an order compelling the FEC to act. Due to a lack of quorum, the FEC remained inactive for an extended period. Eventually, the District Court granted summary judgment to the nonprofit, ordered the FEC to act within 30 days, and later determined the FEC had not complied, thereby allowing the nonprofit to file a citizen suit against the NRA-associated entities. The national advocacy group sought to dismiss the citizen suit, arguing the District Court lacked jurisdiction. It also moved to intervene in the original action, but only for the limited purpose of unsealing the judicial record. Subsequently, after the District Court’s final judgment, the advocacy group filed a motion under Rule 60(b)(4) seeking relief from the orders and judgment, contending that the District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to mootness and lack of adversity. The District Court denied this motion, holding that the group, as a nonparty, lacked standing to seek relief under Rule 60(b). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the appeal from the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion. The Court held that only parties to a lawsuit, or those who properly become parties, may appeal an adverse judgment. Since the advocacy group had not used any procedural mechanism to become a party to the underlying suit, it lacked the procedural ability to appeal. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal as impermissible under binding precedent. View "Giffords v. FEC" on Justia Law

Ramirez v. City of Texas City

2026-09-03T15:30:07-08:00

Michael Ramirez purchased a house in Texas City, Texas, intending to remodel and resell it. After a fire caused substantial but repairable damage, the City declared the property substandard and, following an inspection, determined it posed a clear and imminent danger. The City sent notice to Ramirez, halted the permit process pending an engineer’s report (which Ramirez never obtained), and the house remained unrepaired for over a year, with Ramirez storing valuable personal property inside. In May 2023, the City demolished the house without further notice. Ramirez then sued, claiming violations of state and federal constitutional rights, including procedural due process and takings, and sought damages for the house, expected profits, personal property, and attorney’s fees. Upon removal to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Ramirez repeatedly requested a jury trial in various filings. The parties signed a joint case management plan acknowledging a jury demand. The district court initially scheduled a jury trial but, shortly before trial, ordered a bench trial instead, finding the jury demand procedurally deficient. After the bench trial, the court held the City had violated Ramirez’s procedural due process rights but justified the demolition under nuisance abatement, awarding only nominal damages and denying attorney’s fees as Ramirez was not considered the prevailing party. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case, focusing on the denial of a jury trial and damages determinations. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying Ramirez’s Rule 39(b) motion for a jury trial, as there were no strong or compelling reasons to do so and Ramirez’s repeated demands were sufficient. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings, including a jury trial and reconsideration of damages and fees. View "Ramirez v. City of Texas City" on Justia Law

INLAND EMPIRE WATERKEEPER V. CORONA CLAY COMPANY

2026-09-03T08:30:38-08:00

The plaintiffs, projects focused on protecting water quality, brought a suit against a clay recycling facility located near Temescal Creek in California, alleging violations of stormwater-permit requirements under the Clean Water Act. The facility, operated by Corona Clay Company, discharged stormwater into Temescal Creek, a tributary of the Santa Ana River. Regulatory authorities had previously issued violation notices to Corona, but no enforcement action was taken by the state. The plaintiffs sought relief for both substantive discharge violations and procedural violations such as monitoring and reporting. The United States District Court for the Central District of California initially found in favor of Corona following a trial. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, citing an intervening Supreme Court decision, County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, which expanded the scope of the Clean Water Act to include indirect discharges that are the “functional equivalent” of direct discharges. On retrial, the plaintiffs prevailed, and Corona was assessed significant penalties. After the Supreme Court’s Sackett v. EPA decision, which narrowed the definition of “waters of the United States,” Corona moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and alternatively sought a new trial. The district court denied both motions, holding that the jurisdictional requirement was met and the issue of whether Temescal Creek qualified as a water of the United States had been conceded. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Corona’s post-judgment motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that whether a waterbody qualifies as a “water of the United States” is a merits question, not a jurisdictional one. However, it reversed the denial of Corona’s motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, concluding that the intervening Sackett decision rendered a previously foreclosed issue viable. The panel remanded for further proceedings to determine, under Sackett’s standard, whether Temescal Creek is a water of the United States. View "INLAND EMPIRE WATERKEEPER V. CORONA CLAY COMPANY" on Justia Law

HAVENS VS. DIST. CT.

2026-09-03T07:08:11-08:00

A former employee entered into a noncompete agreement with his employer, which barred him from engaging in similar business activities for 12 months within the company’s client base area after his employment ended in April 2024. Months later, the employer alleged that the former employee and his new business violated the agreement and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction to enforce it. After the parties exchanged filings, the district court issued a TRO in June 2025, set to remain in effect indefinitely, and delayed the hearing on the preliminary injunction multiple times, citing new evidence related to a superseding noncompete agreement. The district court clarified the TRO’s scope, found the petitioners in contempt for violating it, and denied their motion to dissolve the TRO. The court eventually allowed the employer to amend its complaint to reflect the new agreement and later issued an amended TRO. A preliminary injunction was finally issued in April 2026. The petitioners challenged the original TRO by writ petition, arguing that it exceeded the 14-day limit allowed by Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and clarified that, under NRCP 65(b)(2), the 14-day time limit applies to TROs regardless of whether they are issued with or without notice. The court held that a TRO cannot be indefinite and must expire after 14 days unless properly extended for good cause or by consent. Because the district court’s TRO was indefinite and not properly extended, it automatically expired 14 days after issuance. The Supreme Court of Nevada granted the writ of mandamus and directed the district court to declare the TRO expired as of June 23, 2025. View "HAVENS VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law

Allen v. Allen

2026-09-03T05:07:40-08:00

A dispute arose over a deed transferring a one-half interest in a farm from a mother to her son, Peter, without consideration, while she was alive. After the mother’s death, her estate, left to four children in equal shares, was inventoried; the contested property was listed as belonging to Peter due to the earlier transfer. David, another son and a beneficiary, objected, claiming that the mother lacked capacity and was unduly influenced when she executed the deed. The estate administrator declined to pursue the claim, believing litigation costs would outweigh the benefit. David then initiated a separate action to invalidate the deed and impose a constructive trust, seeking to restore the property interest to the estate. The 6th Circuit Court–Concord Probate Division held a trial and ruled in favor of David, finding that Peter had unduly influenced the mother and that she lacked capacity at the time of the transfer. The probate court invalidated the deed, deferred ruling on the constructive trust, and awarded attorney’s fees to David. Peter’s motion for reconsideration was denied. He appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court and subsequently moved in probate court to vacate all orders for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; the probate court declined to address the motion, noting the issue was already raised on appeal. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and determined that the probate court lacked statutory subject matter jurisdiction over David’s claims. The court found that the claims, concerning an inter vivos property transfer, did not have the direct connection to estate administration or distribution required for probate court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court vacated the probate court’s order and remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition without prejudice. View "Allen v. Allen" on Justia Law

Instituto Medico del Norte, Inc. v. Greengift Capital, LLC

2026-09-02T13:00:03-08:00

A medical institution in Puerto Rico borrowed over $10 million from a bank in 1984 to build a hospital, but soon disputes arose regarding the loan. The bank claimed the institution defaulted, while the institution asserted the bank failed to disburse funds as required. Litigation and bankruptcy proceedings followed. In 1991, the parties settled, but the terms of that settlement—whether the debt was split into interest-bearing and non-interest-bearing portions—remained contested. Over the next decades, the loan changed hands, and in 2013 the institution filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy again. The current loan-holder claimed a significantly higher outstanding balance than the institution believed was owed, due in part to differing interpretations of the 1991 agreement and subsequent bankruptcy plan. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico previously addressed these disputes. It issued orders requiring the institution to demonstrate, with evidence, that the 1991 agreement created a non-interest-bearing note and that it had made payments in accordance with the bankruptcy plan. The court denied discovery, required summary judgment briefing, and ultimately issued an order with minimal analysis, granting the loan-holder’s motion to dismiss and denying the institution’s motion for summary judgment. The court’s reasoning was ambiguous, referencing both summary judgment and pleading standards, and did not clearly identify the basis for its decision. On appeal, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico affirmed, concluding the bankruptcy plan did not incorporate the 1991 bifurcated note arrangement. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, reviewing the case, found the bankruptcy court’s order insufficiently reasoned to permit meaningful appellate review. The First Circuit vacated the lower courts’ decisions and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the bankruptcy court to clarify its reasoning, identify the applicable legal standards, and consider whether summary judgment or further fact-finding is appropriate. View "Instituto Medico del Norte, Inc. v. Greengift Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

County of Westchester v. Express Scripts

2026-09-02T06:30:15-08:00

Several counties and municipalities in New York initiated lawsuits in state courts against two pharmacy benefit managers, Express Scripts, Inc. and OptumRx, Inc., alleging that these companies contributed to the opioid epidemic in their communities. The claims are based on state law and center on the defendants’ alleged practices in negotiating with opioid manufacturers and managing prescription formularies, which plaintiffs contend led to an oversupply of prescription opioids and caused substantial public harm and government expense. The defendants removed the cases to federal court—the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York—arguing removal was proper under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), because some of the challenged conduct was performed under contracts with federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense (TRICARE), the Office of Personnel Management (FEHBP), and the Veterans Health Administration. After removal, the plaintiffs amended their complaints to disclaim any claims based on the defendants’ work for federal clients, seeking to have the cases remanded to state court. The district courts accepted the disclaimers and remanded the cases. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district courts’ decisions. It concluded that the disclaimers were ineffective because the alleged wrongful conduct and resulting harms could not be separated between federal and non-federal clients; the conduct was indivisible. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, the Second Circuit held that the defendants satisfied all statutory requirements for federal officer removal: they acted under federal direction, were sued for acts relating to federal authority, and asserted colorable federal defenses. The Second Circuit therefore reversed the remand orders and returned the cases to the district courts for further proceedings. View "County of Westchester v. Express Scripts" on Justia Law

Moreno v. Ranger Energy Servs.

2026-09-01T10:47:04-08:00

The plaintiff suffered severe injuries while working at a drilling site in New Mexico. Nearly two years and eight months after the incident, he filed his first lawsuit in Texas state court, alleging negligence and related claims against the defendants. Texas law provides a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, and the Texas court dismissed his suit with prejudice as time-barred. The plaintiff did not appeal that dismissal. Four months later, the plaintiff brought a substantially similar lawsuit in New Mexico state court, seeking to take advantage of New Mexico’s three-year statute of limitations and its savings statute, which allows a plaintiff to refile within six months after certain dismissals. The New Mexico district court dismissed the second suit, agreeing with the defendants that the savings statute did not apply because the plaintiff failed to timely file his first action. The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that pursuing the claim in Texas constituted a failure to prosecute with reasonable diligence, and that the savings statute’s exception for negligence in prosecution applied. The Court of Appeals relied on precedent that interpreted the exception broadly. The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico granted certiorari to review whether the lower courts correctly applied the savings statute in light of its new decision in Zangara v. LSF9 Master Participation Trust. The Supreme Court clarified that the “negligence in prosecution” exception only applies when the first action is dismissed for failure to prosecute, and rejected the Court of Appeals’ broader analysis. However, the Supreme Court held that the New Mexico savings statute requires the first action to be timely commenced. Because the plaintiff’s Texas lawsuit was itself untimely, the New Mexico savings statute did not apply, and the second suit could not proceed. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. View "Moreno v. Ranger Energy Servs." on Justia Law

National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States

2026-08-31T12:45:06-08:00

The federal government initiated a project to replace the East Wing of the White House, completing demolition in December 2025 and beginning construction of a new wing, which included both a below-ground military installation and an above-ground ballroom. The National Trust for Historic Preservation challenged aspects of the ongoing construction and sought a preliminary injunction to halt the above-ground work due to concerns about its impact on aesthetic, cultural, and historical interests. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Trust’s motion for a preliminary injunction, allowing only construction strictly necessary for security purposes above ground but permitting below-ground work to continue. The government appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit initially stayed the injunction, then ultimately affirmed the district court’s order. With the injunction set to take effect, the government sought relief from the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court granted the requested stay of the district court's injunction pending the government’s petition for certiorari. The Court held that the government is likely to succeed in showing the Trust lacks Article III standing, as the Trust’s asserted injury—distress at viewing the new ballroom’s design—does not constitute a concrete and particularized injury. The Court also found that the government would likely suffer irreparable harm from halting construction, given national security concerns and operational needs, while the Trust’s claimed harm was outweighed by these factors. The stay will remain in effect until certiorari is denied or, if granted, until the judgment is issued. View "National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States" on Justia Law

SMITH v. POULTER

2026-08-31T09:32:38-08:00

Bryan Smith requested court records from the Bonneville County District Court in April 2025, specifically seeking copies of judgments and certificates of service for 169 small claims cases. The Clerk’s Office charged him $352 for the records, relying on a 2017 Administrative Order that set fees for electronic records production. Smith paid the fee after the Clerk refused to reduce the charge, then filed suit against the Clerk in his official capacity, alleging he was overcharged and that Idaho Code section 74-102(10) should control the fee charged for electronic records. He sought declaratory relief and damages for the alleged overcharge. The Seventh Judicial District, Bonneville County, heard cross motions for summary judgment. The Clerk asserted quasi-judicial immunity based on following an administrative court order. The district court granted summary judgment for the Clerk, holding he had absolute quasi-judicial immunity and declining to address the merits of Smith’s claims, including whether the fee was excessive or inconsistent with Idaho law. The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the appeal. Applying a de novo standard, the Court held that quasi-judicial immunity is only a defense to personal liability, not official capacity suits, and the district court erred in applying that defense. On the merits, the Court found the 2017 Administrative Order’s fee structure was inconsistent with Idaho Court Administrative Rule 32 and Idaho Code section 74-102(10), which require fees to reflect actual labor and material costs. Smith was overcharged by $330.67. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, vacated the amended judgment, and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Smith, directing the Clerk to refund $330.67 and awarding Smith costs on appeal. View "SMITH v. POULTER" on Justia Law

In re A.H.

2026-08-31T09:31:32-08:00

A child who is an enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe was placed in the guardianship of his paternal grandmother after his biological parents were found unable to care for him. Over the years, concerns arose regarding the guardian’s ability to meet the child’s medical and educational needs, leading to multiple child welfare referrals. Ultimately, the county child welfare agency filed a juvenile dependency petition, asserting the guardian’s failure to protect and provide for the child due to alleged mental illness and neglect. The child’s tribe, which had been involved in the child’s probate and dependency matters for several years, requested a court-ordered psychological evaluation of the guardian to assess her capacity to care for the child. The Superior Court of Riverside County ordered the psychological evaluation but specified it was for “case planning purposes only.” When the tribe later sought access to the evaluation to assist in case monitoring and planning, the guardian objected, arguing privacy and privilege concerns. The juvenile court denied the tribe’s request, finding the evaluation was not ordered for the tribe’s benefit and that there were no compelling reasons to release it. The tribe appealed, contending that it had a presumptive right to the evaluation under state and federal law due to its role in protecting the welfare of its citizen child. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, held that the tribe is presumptively entitled to access the guardian’s psychological evaluation under Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 and related statutes. The court concluded that the tribe, as a party to the proceedings and as a multidisciplinary team member, did not need to file a separate petition for access, and that neither privacy nor privilege barred disclosure of the court-ordered report. The appellate court reversed the juvenile court’s order and directed the release of the evaluation to the tribe. View "In re A.H." on Justia Law

In re: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2026-08-31T09:00:57-08:00

Plaintiffs, who had donated funds to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, alleged that the Church and its investment subsidiary, Ensign Peak Advisors, Inc., fraudulently induced donations by concealing the true use and accumulation of donated funds. They claimed that the Church misrepresented that tithing would be used for charitable and religious purposes, when instead large portions were invested and used for commercial ventures, such as the development of the City Creek Mall. A key event in the case was the publication of a whistleblower report in December 2019, which was widely reported in national and local media and described how the Church managed and concealed a large investment portfolio. The Church publicly responded, and three other lawsuits were filed by different donors based on similar allegations. After actions were filed in several federal district courts, the cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Plaintiffs brought claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, seeking to represent a nationwide class of post-1997 donors. The district court dismissed the consolidated complaint with prejudice, ruling that the claims were untimely under Utah’s three-year statute of limitations for fraud. The court found that the widespread news coverage of the whistleblower report meant that plaintiffs, exercising reasonable diligence, should have discovered the alleged fraud more than three years before filing suit. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Tenth Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred because the whistleblower report and related media coverage provided sufficient public notice to trigger the statute of limitations, and that reasonable diligence would have led to earlier discovery. The court also found no error in the district court’s procedural rulings and denied the request for leave to amend. View "In re: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" on Justia Law

Utah Vapor Business Association v. State of Utah

2026-08-31T09:00:57-08:00

Businesses selling flavored e-cigarettes in Utah challenged a state law passed in March 2024 that banned the sale of any e-cigarette flavors other than tobacco or menthol. The plaintiffs, representing Retail Tobacco Specialty Businesses (RTSBs), argued that this “Flavor Ban” would severely affect their operations, as the majority of their sales involved flavored products. They asserted that the ban was preempted by the Federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and also contended that the law’s enforcement mechanism, which authorized warrantless searches by local health departments, violated the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, seeking preliminary injunctions against both the Flavor Ban and the enforcement mechanism. The district court denied the preliminary injunction regarding the Flavor Ban, concluding that federal law did not preempt the state’s action, but granted an injunction against the enforcement provision, finding the warrantless search mechanism unconstitutional. The court determined that the enforcement provision was severable from the rest of the Act, so it left the remainder of the law, including the Flavor Ban, intact. Both sides appealed the rulings adverse to them. After the Utah legislature amended the enforcement provision, both parties agreed that the Fourth Amendment issue was moot. The only remaining issue on appeal was whether the federal law preempted the state’s Flavor Ban. However, the plaintiffs failed to properly identify the relevant district court order denying the preliminary injunction against the Flavor Ban in their notice of appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that because the plaintiffs’ notice of appeal did not specify the order they sought to challenge, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the preemption issue. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "Utah Vapor Business Association v. State of Utah" on Justia Law

Skatteforvaltningen v. Markowitz

2026-08-31T06:30:16-08:00

Several individuals, including Richard and Jocelyn Markowitz, John and Elizabeth van Merkensteijn, and pension funds they controlled, were found by a jury to have defrauded the Danish tax authority (Skat) by submitting false claims for tax refunds. The defendants conceded before trial that they were never entitled to the refunds under the U.S.-Denmark tax treaty, admitting that they had not owned Danish shares or received dividends subject to Danish withholding tax. However, they argued that they had been misled by a London-based trading partner into believing otherwise and were unaware that the refund claims submitted on their behalf were fraudulent. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York presided over the case after it was consolidated as part of multidistrict litigation. The defendants unsuccessfully moved to dismiss Skat’s claims, contending that the common law revenue rule barred the suit. The district court held that because the defendants never owned the relevant Danish stocks or paid taxes, Skat’s claims were for commercial fraud rather than enforcement of Danish tax law. After trial, the jury found each defendant liable, and the district court entered judgments totaling over $476 million based on Skat’s gross payments and prejudgment interest. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Skat’s lawsuit was not barred by the revenue rule because it did not seek to enforce foreign tax laws, but rather sought recovery for fraud. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s exclusion of certain evidence and upheld the sufficiency of evidence supporting judgments against Jocelyn Markowitz and Elizabeth van Merkensteijn under an agency theory. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Skatteforvaltningen v. Markowitz" on Justia Law

JADUE v. DHS

2026-08-31T06:01:02-08:00

An employee who had previously worked for the Department of State, and later for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a criminal investigator, was removed from his position by DHS. The removal was based on a charge of lack of candor, relating to allegedly deceptive or incomplete responses he gave during the background investigation process, including failing to disclose an agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office that led to his resignation from State, and omitting details about prior criminal charges and a security clearance suspension. The employee contested the removal, arguing that his omissions were not deceptive and that he had legitimate reasons for his responses. After his removal, the employee filed a "mixed case" complaint with DHS’s Office of Diversity and Civil Rights, alleging both discrimination and non-discrimination grounds for his termination. DHS failed to meet certain regulatory deadlines for handling his complaint. The employee eventually appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (the Board), including a motion for sanctions against DHS for missing deadlines. The Board’s administrative judge denied the sanctions request, sustained four of the eleven specifications supporting the lack of candor charge, and upheld the penalty of removal. The full Board split, making the initial decision final and appealable. On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, because the employee had formally abandoned his discrimination claims, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of sanctions, as those arguments were based solely on the discrimination aspects of the case. The court affirmed the Board’s findings that four specifications of lack of candor were supported by substantial evidence and that the penalty of removal was reasonable. The court dismissed the appeal as to sanctions for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the Board in all other respects. View "JADUE v. DHS " on Justia Law

Iwasa v. Nago

2026-08-28T13:03:00-08:00

A dispute arose from the City and County of Honolulu’s first special election for the District IV councilmember seat, held August 8, 2026. The controversy centered on whether the term limit provision in the Revised Charter—which prohibits anyone from being “elected to the office of councilmember for more than two consecutive four-year terms”—barred the incumbent, who had been elected in both 2019 (in a special election following the invalidation of the 2018 results) and 2022, from running again for the 2027–2031 term. The 2019 election had followed a court-ordered re-run between the same two candidates after irregularities invalidated the 2018 contest. After the Acting City Clerk rejected objections to the incumbent’s eligibility, a candidate filed a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, which ruled the incumbent ineligible. Because ballots had already been printed, election officials notified voters that votes for the incumbent would not count toward determining an eligible candidate for the next round. As no candidate received a majority in the August election, officials prepared to advance the top two eligible candidates, excluding the incumbent, to the second special election. The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed both the procedural and substantive issues. The court held that the Circuit Court should have dismissed the declaratory judgment action as procedurally improper, because Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 12-8 provided the exclusive remedy for pre-election eligibility challenges. However, the Supreme Court determined it could address the merits under the statutes governing election contests. On the merits, the court concluded the incumbent was “elected to” two consecutive four-year terms and was thus ineligible to run for a third consecutive term under the Revised Charter. The court ordered that only the two eligible candidates be placed on the ballot for the second special election. Judgment was entered for the defendants. View "Iwasa v. Nago" on Justia Law

Williams v. Mastronardi Produce-USA, Inc.

2026-08-28T11:00:07-08:00

The plaintiff alleged she experienced race and gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation while employed at a facility operated by a subsidiary corporation in Michigan. Initially, she sued the parent corporation, claiming it was her employer and responsible for the alleged misconduct. The parent corporation contended she had sued the wrong entity and provided evidence that the subsidiary, not the parent, was her employer. The district court in the first case sided with the parent corporation, finding that it was not the plaintiff’s employer and that the complaint did not support a joint-employer theory or veil-piercing. After this ruling, the plaintiff filed a new suit against the subsidiary, asserting similar factual allegations and an additional hostile work environment claim under Michigan law. In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the subsidiary moved to dismiss the new case, arguing that claim preclusion barred the suit because the parent and subsidiary were in privity. The district court rejected the argument that the subsidiary had controlled the prior litigation but applied a “close-and-significant-relationship” test based on the parent-subsidiary relationship and equitable considerations. Concluding that privity existed and the other elements of claim preclusion were met, the district court granted the subsidiary’s motion to dismiss. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that the district court erred by applying the “close-and-significant-relationship” test for privity, rather than the six recognized exceptions to nonparty preclusion from Taylor v. Sturgell. None of the exceptions—pre-existing substantive legal relationship, control, or adequate representation—applied to the facts. Therefore, claim preclusion did not bar the plaintiff’s suit against the subsidiary. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. View "Williams v. Mastronardi Produce-USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Fischer v. XTO Energy

2026-08-28T08:00:46-08:00

A family group brought claims in Oklahoma state court against an energy company, alleging underpayment of oil and gas royalties over several decades. These claims overlapped with those in a separate class action brought by another party against the company and its related entities, also concerning underpayment of royalties. The class action was removed to federal court, where a settlement was reached and approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The settlement covered claims for a defined period, and included a permanent injunction barring class members from pursuing similar claims. The family did not opt out of the settlement and received compensation under its terms. Later, the energy company sought summary judgment in the family’s original state case, arguing that the federal settlement released the company from liability for claims during the covered period. When summary judgment was denied, the company returned to the federal district court, seeking enforcement of the settlement’s injunction against further pursuit of those claims by the family in state court. The federal court declined to issue a new injunction but found that the family’s ongoing litigation of released claims violated the original injunction. The court ordered the family to either show cause for their violation or agree to abide by the injunction and dismiss the released claims. The family appealed this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit determined that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the order. The court held that a post-judgment civil contempt or enforcement order is not final and appealable unless the district court both finds contempt and imposes a specific, unavoidable sanction. Because the district court’s order did neither, and because no alternative grounds for appellate jurisdiction applied, the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal. View "Fischer v. XTO Energy" on Justia Law

Cronick v. City of Colorado Springs

2026-08-28T08:00:46-08:00

A woman was arrested and searched by Colorado Springs police officers in the parking lot of a motel where she lived, following her involvement in assisting an overdose victim and recording the police response. The officers claimed she was disruptive and failed to comply with commands to leave the scene, while she maintained she was cooperative and was wrongfully arrested. After her acquittal of the municipal charge, she brought a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the officers for unlawful arrest and search, seeking damages including for emotional distress. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado addressed extensive disputes during discovery. The plaintiff had deleted social media videos of her later police encounters, as well as records and messages related to the arrest. The court sanctioned her and her attorneys with a monetary penalty and gave adverse-inference jury instructions, directing the jury to presume that she regularly disrupted police business and profited from posting such videos. At trial, over her objection, the court admitted more than twenty clips from her unrelated copwatching videos, which portrayed her berating officers and threatening lawsuits. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the officers. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the unrelated videos and by issuing an adverse-inference instruction that invited improper propensity reasoning, thereby unfairly prejudicing the plaintiff before the jury and depriving her of a fair trial. The Tenth Circuit vacated the judgment for the officers and remanded the case for a new trial. However, it affirmed the monetary sanction against the plaintiff and her attorneys for discovery violations. View "Cronick v. City of Colorado Springs" on Justia Law

Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Simon

2026-08-28T08:00:11-08:00

An organization based in Virginia requested access to Minnesota’s Registered Voter List under a federal statute, asserting it was entitled to the records despite Minnesota’s exemption from the law. Minnesota denied the request, citing its exemption as a state with continuous election-day registration since August 1, 1994. The organization also sought the information under a Minnesota statute, but was again denied because no Minnesota-registered voter joined the request. The organization acknowledged it could obtain the information by recruiting a Minnesota voter but did not do so. It then filed suit, claiming Minnesota’s exemption from the federal disclosure requirement was unconstitutional, alleging informational injury and other adverse consequences. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota reviewed the case. Minnesota moved to dismiss, and the United States intervened to defend the statute’s constitutionality. The district court dismissed the organization’s claim on the merits, concluding that the “equal sovereignty” principle does not apply to Congress’s authority under the Elections Clause. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered whether the organization had Article III standing. The court reviewed standing de novo and focused on whether the plaintiff had suffered a concrete injury in fact. The court held that a purely informational injury does not satisfy Article III’s requirements and found the plaintiff’s alleged downstream consequences insufficient, as they lacked a nexus to the interests Congress sought to protect. The court concluded the plaintiff failed to allege a concrete injury and therefore lacked standing. The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. View "Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Simon" on Justia Law

CABARDO V. PATACSIL

2026-08-27T12:30:34-08:00

Ernesto and Marilyn Patacsil operated group care homes, and in 2012, eight of their employees brought suit in federal district court alleging violations of California labor laws, including failure to provide breaks, pay lawful wages, and maintain accurate records. The employees sought damages and civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, and the district court awarded substantial damages, attorney fees, and PAGA penalties. Of the PAGA penalties, 75% were designated for the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and 25% for the aggrieved employees. Shortly after the judgment, the Patacsils filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The employees (creditors) initiated an adversary proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court, seeking to have the PAGA judgment debts declared nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(6) and (7). The bankruptcy court determined that a trial was needed to resolve whether most of the judgment was nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6, which requires a showing of willful and malicious injury. Under § 523(a)(7), the court found that only the portion of PAGA penalties payable to the LWDA was excepted from discharge, not the 25% allocated to employees or the attorney fees. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted leave for an interlocutory appeal on the § 523(a)(7) issue, affirmed the bankruptcy court’s ruling, and remanded for further proceedings on the remaining issues. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the appeal and determined that because the dischargeability proceeding was not yet final—trial on the § 523(a)(6) issue was still pending—it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "CABARDO V. PATACSIL" on Justia Law

DAVIS VS. DIST. CT.

2026-08-27T09:37:34-08:00

A bus passenger, Vasken Ohanian, sued the bus driver Tamisha Davis and her employer MV Transportation, Inc. after being struck by a bus and allegedly suffering both physical and psychological injuries. Davis and MV retained an expert psychologist, Dr. Thomas Kinsora, to conduct a neuropsychological evaluation of Ohanian. Dr. Kinsora’s report criticized the evaluation by Ohanian’s own expert, Dr. Michael A. Elliott, and concluded that Ohanian’s symptoms were inconsistent with true traumatic injury. Ohanian requested disclosure of the raw psychological test data, including exam questions used by Dr. Kinsora, claiming this was necessary for effective cross-examination. The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County ordered Davis and MV to disclose the raw test data to Ohanian’s counsel, subject to a protective order. Davis and MV partially complied but refused to disclose the exam questions, arguing that a newly-enacted regulation, NAC 641.234(3), prohibited such disclosure absent a specific state or federal law. The district court found that Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (NRCP) 16.1 and NRS 50.305 constituted specific state laws requiring disclosure and repeatedly ordered compliance. Davis and MV continued to resist full disclosure and petitioned for a writ of mandamus to the Supreme Court of Nevada. The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed whether NAC 641.234(3) superseded the district court’s discovery order. The Court held that the Board of Psychological Examiners’ authority under NRS 641.100(2) extends only to regulating the practice of psychology, not court-ordered discovery. The Court found that district courts have broad discretion to control discovery under NRCP 16.1 and NRCP 35, including ordering disclosure of raw test data. It concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion and denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. View "DAVIS VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law

Rokhvand & Barmada v. Herzfeld

2026-08-27T06:31:38-08:00

Two activists participated in demonstrations outside the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C., protesting Israel's military actions in Gaza. Over several months, three incidents occurred involving Rabbi Herzfeld, a local rabbi and community leader, and the activists. During these incidents, the activists alleged that Rabbi Herzfeld and his companions made provocative and upsetting remarks, engaged in intimidating behavior, and, in one instance, initiated a federal lawsuit and media coverage that the activists felt endangered them. The activists felt harassed and took steps to increase their personal security after these events. Following the third incident, the activists filed petitions for anti-stalking orders in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, alleging that Rabbi Herzfeld’s conduct constituted stalking under D.C. law. Rabbi Herzfeld moved to dismiss the petitions, arguing that his actions were protected by the First Amendment and did not meet the statutory definition of stalking, citing precedent from Mashaud v. Boone. The trial court held a summary trial and ultimately denied the petitions, finding that the conduct did not amount to threats or surveillance within the meaning of the statute and was constitutionally protected speech. Rabbi Herzfeld later sought attorney’s fees under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act and, alternatively, for alleged bad faith. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. It affirmed the denial of the anti-stalking petitions, holding that Rabbi Herzfeld’s conduct did not constitute “true threats” and was protected political speech, not actionable as stalking. The court vacated the award of attorney’s fees, finding the trial court had applied the wrong legal standard under the Anti-SLAPP Act and had not given proper notice for a bad-faith fee award. The matter was remanded for further proceedings regarding attorney’s fees. View "Rokhvand & Barmada v. Herzfeld" on Justia Law

Ari Law v. Autonation.com

2026-08-26T13:32:05-08:00

A dispute arose from a vehicle lease agreement, leading Ari Law P.C. to file a Second Amended Complaint in May 2024 against BMW Financial Services NA, LLC and other defendants. Ari Law alleged breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, unfair business practices, fraud, and violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The San Mateo County Superior Court sustained BMW FS’s demurrer as to counts 2, 3, and 6 (warranty claims and Rosenthal Act claim) without leave to amend. Despite this, Ari Law included these dismissed counts in a Third Amended Complaint filed in September 2024. BMW FS repeatedly requested Ari Law to withdraw the improper claims, but Ari Law refused. BMW FS then served Ari Law with a motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5 and 128.7, initially noticing a hearing for January 17, 2025, and later re-serving and filing the motion with a hearing date of March 18, 2025. The trial court sustained BMW FS’s demurrer to the same counts without leave to amend, and after considering the sanctions motion, imposed monetary sanctions of $29,055 against Ari Law and its counsel. Ari Law challenged the sanctions order, arguing that the notice of motion did not comply with statutory requirements due to differing hearing dates and insufficient time for the safe harbor period. The trial court rejected these procedural objections, finding that Ari Law had adequate notice and opportunity to address the motion, and denied Ari Law’s motion for reconsideration. The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It held that the discrepancy in hearing dates between the served and filed notices did not invalidate the sanctions order, so long as the substance of the motion remained the same and the safe harbor provisions were strictly satisfied. The court affirmed the sanctions order, denied BMW FS’s request for sanctions on appeal, and awarded BMW FS costs. View "Ari Law v. Autonation.com" on Justia Law

Hickenbottom v. Medical Solutions

2026-08-26T12:01:06-08:00

A healthcare staffing company hired an employee as a travel nurse, requiring him to sign multiple agreements containing arbitration provisions with varying language. When the employee later accepted a temporary assignment at a hospital, he signed an additional agreement incorporating the employer’s most recent arbitration policy. After his assignment ended, the employee filed a class action lawsuit alleging wage and hour violations against the company. The company responded by filing a motion in the Superior Court of San Diego County to compel arbitration, relying on the arbitration provision from the employee handbook. The employee opposed, arguing that the handbook’s provision was superseded by the newer arbitration agreement incorporated into his most recent assignment. The court denied the motion, finding that the company had relied on the wrong agreement. The company then filed a second motion to compel arbitration, this time based on the updated agreement, but failed to provide the affidavit or explanation required by California Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 for renewed motions. The employee objected, contending that the second motion sought the same relief as the first and was subject to section 1008(b), which the company had not satisfied. The Superior Court agreed, ruled it lacked jurisdiction to consider the renewed motion, and denied it. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed whether the trial court properly applied section 1008(b) and whether the second motion was a renewed motion for the same relief. The appellate court held that the company’s second motion sought identical relief as the first—compelling arbitration of the same claims—regardless of which agreement formed the basis. Because the company failed to comply with section 1008(b), the trial court lacked jurisdiction, and the order denying the renewed motion was not appealable. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. View "Hickenbottom v. Medical Solutions" on Justia Law

ZUNUM AERO, INC. V. THE BOEING COMPANY

2026-08-26T09:00:32-08:00

A company specializing in hybrid electric aircraft technology filed suit in Washington state court against a major aerospace manufacturer and its investment affiliate, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and tortious interference, among other state law claims. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant improperly used its confidential information, including by incorporating aspects of the plaintiff’s technology into two patents obtained by the defendant. The plaintiff’s claims involved several theories and more than 30 alleged trade secrets. The aerospace manufacturer responded by counterclaiming for a declaratory judgment that its employees were the sole inventors of one of the patents in question. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington based on this federal patent law counterclaim, and a second inventorship counterclaim was later added regarding another patent. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on both patent inventorship counterclaims. The remainder of the plaintiff’s claims proceeded to a jury, which returned a verdict awarding the plaintiff over $92 million for trade secret misappropriation and tortious interference. However, the district court granted the defendant’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law and conditionally granted a new trial, vacating the jury award. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s post-trial rulings and remanded the case with instructions for reassignment to a different district judge. In a subsequent petition for rehearing, the defendant argued for the first time that appellate jurisdiction belonged exclusively to the Federal Circuit because the counterclaims were compulsory and arose under patent law. The Ninth Circuit held that the defendant’s counterclaims, though arising under federal patent law, were permissive—not compulsory—because they did not share the same operative facts as the plaintiff’s state law claims; thus, Ninth Circuit jurisdiction was proper. The court also held that the district court appropriately exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, as they shared a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal counterclaims. The petition for rehearing was denied. View "ZUNUM AERO, INC. V. THE BOEING COMPANY" on Justia Law

All Does v. Conrad & Scherer, LLP

2026-08-26T07:30:58-08:00

A group of Colombian plaintiffs retained two attorneys under a contingency fee agreement to sue a multinational corporation for allegedly funding a paramilitary group that murdered their relatives. The agreement specified that the attorneys would receive one-third of any monetary award obtained before trial. A conflict soon arose between the attorneys after one joined a law firm, leading to disputes over representation and eventual court intervention. The case was consolidated into multidistrict litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and over time, one attorney was discharged, with the court instructing the discharged attorney’s firm to file a charging lien to preserve its claim for fees and costs. After a settlement was reached that allocated $12.8 million to the plaintiffs and their counsel, the discharged firm moved to enforce its charging lien against the attorney’s share of the recovery. The district court referred the motion to a magistrate judge, who recommended nearly full payment to the firm. The district court adopted this recommendation, ordered the disputed funds to be held in the court registry pending appeal, and required that the funds not be disbursed until appellate review was exhausted. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether it had jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of the district court’s order enforcing the charging lien. The Eleventh Circuit held that such orders do not fall within the collateral-order doctrine because they do not resolve important issues separate from the merits and are not effectively unreviewable after final judgment. The court explained that attorneys’ contractual or equitable rights to payment do not implicate substantial public interests or values of a high order and can be adequately reviewed after final judgment. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "All Does v. Conrad & Scherer, LLP" on Justia Law

Black v. Unibank

2026-08-25T15:30:06-08:00

Roy Hill, founder and CEO of Clean Energy Technology Association, Inc. (CETA), solicited investments by representing that CETA owned patented carbon capture technology and promised investors returns from these assets. CETA, however, operated as a Ponzi scheme, using funds from new investors to pay returns to earlier ones. UniBank, a Washington-based commercial bank, provided secured loans to investors who used the funds to buy interests in CETA’s purported assets. UniBank perfected its security interests in the distributions from CETA. After the SEC initiated an enforcement action alleging fraud and sought appointment of a receiver, Albert Black was appointed to marshal CETA’s assets for the benefit of creditors and investors. In parallel litigation, investors sued UniBank in Washington state court for fraud and negligence, but UniBank obtained summary judgment on the basis that it owed no duty to the investors. Meanwhile, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, the receiver recommended a pro rata distribution of the remaining CETA estate funds to all investors and creditors based on net cash losses, aggregating UniBank’s claims with those of other victims rather than honoring UniBank’s asserted secured creditor priority. UniBank objected, arguing its perfected liens should grant it priority recovery. The district court overruled UniBank’s objection, adopted the receiver’s recommendation, and ordered pro rata distributions. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s order. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court failed to provide UniBank with adequate due process because it adopted the receiver’s recommendation with only a cursory analysis and without giving UniBank a meaningful opportunity to present its evidence and arguments, particularly given the extensive record. The court vacated the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with due process requirements, without expressing a view on the merits. View "Black v. Unibank" on Justia Law

West Development, LLC v. Town of W. Yellowstone

2026-08-25T14:38:29-08:00

A developer formed a company in 2006 and purchased property in the Town of West Yellowstone, Montana, intending to construct a 48-unit condominium project. The developer obtained a building permit and a “Will Serve Letter” from the Town, confirming that water, sewer, and storm drainage services would be provided. Construction began in 2007 but ceased in 2011, after which the building permit expired due to inactivity. The developer did not reapply for a permit, nor did it renew related approvals. In 2019, the Town adopted a resolution limiting new wastewater connections due to capacity concerns. In 2020, the developer attempted to sell the property, contingent on confirmation that service connections would still be honored. The Town responded that hookups would be permitted when capacity allowed but did not guarantee immediate service. The Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, denied the Town’s argument that the developer’s claims were time-barred under statutory limitations, ruling that the claims accrued only when the Town refused to guarantee connections in 2020. However, the District Court granted summary judgment for the Town on the merits, finding that the Will Serve Letter did not create an enforceable contract or vested right to service after years of inactivity and expired permits, and that the Town did not owe a special duty under the public duty doctrine. The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s rulings. It held that the developer’s claims were timely but that, even assuming a contract existed, any right to service under the Will Serve Letter expired after a prolonged period of project inactivity and lapsed permits. The Court further held that the Town owed no special duty to the developer beyond its general obligations to the public, and summary judgment for the Town was appropriate. View "West Development, LLC v. Town of W. Yellowstone" on Justia Law

Doe v. Carnival Corporation

2026-08-25T12:01:05-08:00

A passenger aboard a cruise ship alleged that, after becoming inebriated, she was separated from her friends and ended up in a maintenance closet with a crewmember. She stated that she was held against her will and sexually assaulted. Both she and the crewmember gave differing accounts of the incident to FBI agents: she could not recall if she consented to sexual conduct, while the crewmember claimed it was consensual and that he did not know she was intoxicated. The FBI investigator ultimately concluded the encounter was consensual, and prosecutors declined to bring criminal charges. The passenger brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida asserting claims including false imprisonment and sexual assault. In pretrial proceedings, the district court granted her motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of false imprisonment liability, finding that the cruise line had not produced admissible evidence to create a dispute of material fact. The district court excluded the FBI reports as hearsay. At trial, the district court instructed the jury that the cruise line was already liable for false imprisonment and limited the ability of the defendant to challenge the factual basis for that claim. The jury found the cruise line liable for sexual assault but rejected the negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, awarding over $10 million in damages. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in granting partial summary judgment on false imprisonment and in excluding the FBI investigator’s conclusions, which were admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule. The appellate court reversed the partial summary judgment on the false imprisonment claim, vacated the judgment as to the false imprisonment and sexual assault claims, and remanded for a new trial on those claims. The negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims remain resolved in favor of the cruise line. View "Doe v. Carnival Corporation" on Justia Law

Dillinger's LLC v. CR-GTD, LLC

2026-08-25T07:24:26-08:00

Cowboy Racing was formed in Wyoming with two members: EFTI, which held a 51% interest and was managed by William Edwards, and Dillinger’s, with a 49% interest, managed by Ryan Clement. The company’s operating agreement appointed Edwards and Clement as the initial managers and set out procedures for removing a manager, including both a for-cause provision and a mechanism for removal with the consent of a majority interest. In February 2025, EFTI, holding the majority interest, removed Clement as a manager citing his unauthorized expenditures. Despite his removal, Clement continued to act as though he had authority on behalf of Cowboy Racing. EFTI and Cowboy Racing then filed suit in the District Court of Laramie County, seeking a declaration that Clement could not act on behalf of the company, enforcement of a purchase right under the operating agreement, damages for breach of a letter of intent, and, relevant here, a preliminary injunction to prevent Clement from representing himself as a manager. Clement objected, arguing that the removal process was procedurally and substantively improper and conflicted with the operating agreement. The Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming reviewed the district court’s grant of the preliminary injunction, applying an abuse of discretion standard. The Court held that while the district court’s order was inartfully phrased as a final determination, it properly found that Cowboy Racing and EFTI were likely to succeed on their claim that Clement was lawfully removed under the operating agreement. The Court concluded the agreement was unambiguous and that EFTI, as the majority member, had the authority to remove Clement with express written consent. The preliminary injunction was affirmed, but the parties retain the right to present further evidence at trial on the merits. View "Dillinger's LLC v. CR-GTD, LLC" on Justia Law

SGCI Holdings III LLC v. FCC

2026-08-25T07:01:19-08:00

In 2022, Soohyung Kim and his company, through an affiliate, secured a winning bid to purchase TEGNA, a large broadcast television company. The transaction required regulatory approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) within 450 days, as specified in the merger agreement. The proposal drew objections from several organizations and individuals, including labor unions, public interest groups, and a rival bidder. Amid ongoing objections and extended public comment periods, the FCC’s Media Bureau ultimately failed to approve the license transfer within the required timeframe, resulting in the expiration of the merger agreement and obligating Kim’s group to pay significant break-up fees. After the collapse of the merger, the appellants filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against both the FCC and various private parties. They alleged constitutional and statutory violations, including Equal Protection claims, Communications Act violations, federal civil rights and conspiracy claims, and D.C.-law tort claims, asserting that the FCC and private parties conspired to prevent the merger based on race. The District Court dismissed all claims. Regarding the FCC, the court found the appellants lacked standing for prospective relief, as they failed to allege a substantial risk of future injury. The court also dismissed the Communications Act claims for lack of jurisdiction. As to the claims against private parties, the court applied Noerr-Pennington immunity and found no plausible basis for the civil rights or tort claims. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. The court held that the appellants lacked standing against the FCC due to insufficient allegations of likely future injury. The court further held that the claims against private appellees failed because the complaint did not plausibly allege intentional race discrimination or actionable tortious interference, and thus did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. View "SGCI Holdings III LLC v. FCC" on Justia Law

Trump v. California

2026-08-25T05:15:05-08:00

The President issued an Executive Order that directed certain federal agencies to take actions related to election integrity, including creating and distributing lists of eligible voters, prioritizing prosecution of officials issuing ballots to ineligible voters, and initiating a rulemaking related to ballot tracking. The Order did not impose any requirements on states or parties outside the Executive Branch, and all actions were subject to feasibility and compliance with existing law. Shortly after the Order was issued, several states and the District of Columbia sued, arguing that the Order unconstitutionally infringed on their authority to administer elections. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts agreed with the states and entered a final judgment enjoining the federal government from implementing the challenged provisions of the Order as to the plaintiff states for the upcoming midterm elections. The government sought a stay of this injunction from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which was denied, prompting an emergency application to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States granted the stay, holding that the government is likely to succeed on its argument that the District Court lacked jurisdiction because the states lacked standing and their claims were not ripe for adjudication. The Court reasoned that the Order was an internal directive that did not cause concrete or imminent harm to the states, and any alleged injury was speculative and dependent on uncertain future events. The Court also found that the government would likely suffer irreparable harm from the injunction, which interfered with the internal workings of the Executive Branch. As a result, the Supreme Court stayed the District Court’s injunction pending further appellate review. View "Trump v. California" on Justia Law

Drushal v. Miller

2026-08-25T05:01:05-08:00

In December 2024, two individuals, Drushal and Eager, initiated a civil action in the Pike County Court of Common Pleas seeking to enforce satisfaction of a prior judgment from the Jackson County Court of Common Pleas against Tyler Miller. The plaintiffs aimed to seize the Millers’ interest in a land contract for real property in Pike County, which the Millers had contracted to purchase from Glenn and Sharon Nickell. The complaint attached the Jackson County certificate of judgment, creating a lien on property owned by Tyler Miller in Pike County. After none of the defendants answered or appeared, Drushal moved for default judgment requesting substitution in the land contract and a writ of possession, as well as a declaration voiding the Nickells’ interest. The Pike County Court of Common Pleas granted a default judgment on May 15, 2025, substituting Drushal for the Millers in the land contract, granting possession to Drushal, and nullifying the Nickells’ interest. The judgment was recorded with the county recorder on June 2, 2025. The Nickells timely appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeals but did not obtain a stay of execution or post a supersedeas bond. They also filed a motion for relief from judgment under Civil Rule 60(B), which remained unresolved. The appellate court dismissed their appeal as moot, reasoning that the recording of the judgment satisfied it, relying on Blodgett v. Blodgett, and denied the motion to remand for consideration of the Rule 60(B) motion. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the Fourth District Court of Appeals. It held that the record did not show a voluntary satisfaction of judgment by the Nickells, as the recording of the judgment was executed by Drushal, not the Nickells. The absence of a stay did not render the appeal moot because restitution could still be available if the judgment were reversed. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Pike County Court of Common Pleas for consideration of the Nickells' motion for relief from judgment. View "Drushal v. Miller" on Justia Law

Gharraee v. Trader Joe's Co.

2026-08-24T15:02:05-08:00

The plaintiff suffered harm as a result of an incident at a Trader Joe’s store. Following a trial in the Superior Court of Stanislaus County, a jury found Trader Joe’s negligent and determined that its negligence was a substantial factor in causing injury to the plaintiff. The jury awarded damages of $23,509,165. After a post-trial motion, the court conditionally granted a new trial unless the plaintiff accepted a reduced award. The plaintiff accepted the remittitur, and an amended judgment was entered for $10,809,165. Trader Joe’s sought to appeal the amended judgment. The deadline to file the notice of appeal was January 20, 2026. On that date, Trader Joe’s submitted its notice of appeal electronically, receiving confirmation of receipt. However, the Superior Court clerk later rejected the filing, citing a local rule and a court website provision that classified notices of appeal as documents that could not be filed electronically. After further attempts, the notice of appeal was eventually accepted and filed on February 17, 2026. The plaintiff then moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It held that the local rule and related court website provisions barring e-filing of notices of appeal were inconsistent with state law, particularly California Rules of Court, rule 2.253. As such, the rule was invalid. The court further held that since Trader Joe’s had delivered the notice of appeal to the clerk electronically on the jurisdictional deadline, the notice was timely. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal. View "Gharraee v. Trader Joe's Co." on Justia Law

UMB Bank, N.A. v. Tupulua

2026-08-24T14:36:28-08:00

In this case, the defendants executed a promissory note and mortgage in 2008, which were eventually assigned to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. In 2015, Wells Fargo initiated a foreclosure action against the defendants, alleging default on the mortgage. During the pendency of the proceedings, Wells Fargo assigned the mortgage to UMB Bank, National Association, which was substituted as the plaintiff. A central issue in the case was whether Wells Fargo possessed the original promissory note at the time the foreclosure complaint was filed, a requirement for standing to foreclose. The Circuit Court of the First Circuit first denied Wells Fargo’s summary judgment motion, finding insufficient admissible evidence of note possession at the time the lawsuit commenced. Later, UMB as successor plaintiff submitted additional declarations and business records in support of a renewed summary judgment motion. The circuit court found these sufficient and ruled in favor of UMB on standing. Shortly before trial, the parties entered into a stipulation regarding certain facts, including that Wells Fargo held the note before the action began and was the current holder, but the stipulation did not specify continuous possession or possession specifically on the complaint’s filing date. The circuit court relied on both the earlier summary judgment ruling and the stipulation, ultimately issuing a foreclosure decree for UMB. On appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed, emphasizing enforcement of the stipulation. The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi reviewed the case and held that there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Wells Fargo possessed the note when the complaint was filed. The court found the evidence submitted by UMB ambiguous and the stipulation insufficiently specific to establish standing. The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the lower courts and remanded the case for further proceedings to resolve this factual issue. View "UMB Bank, N.A. v. Tupulua" on Justia Law

US v. Reynoso

2026-08-24T13:30:04-08:00

Federal prosecutors obtained a seizure warrant from a magistrate judge in the District of Puerto Rico authorizing the seizure of approximately 119.65 Bitcoin from a wallet associated with Juan Carlos Reynoso. The warrant required that the assets be transferred to a government-controlled wallet within 24 hours and prohibited Reynoso from obstructing or interfering with the seizure. Reynoso’s attorney, Walter Reynoso, agreed to accept service of the warrant on his client’s behalf, but due to family commitments, did not promptly relay the warrant to Reynoso. By the time Walter opened the warrant email, the deadline had passed, and multiple transfers had already occurred from the wallet. Additional transfers took place in the days following, resulting in the complete dissipation of the assets. The government filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico to hold Reynoso in civil contempt for failing to comply with the warrant. The court issued an order to show cause, and Reynoso responded by seeking to quash service and requesting an evidentiary hearing, arguing that material facts were in dispute. The government opposed, asserting there were no significant factual disputes. The District Court denied the motion to quash, granted the contempt motion, and held Reynoso in civil contempt, stating that a hearing was unnecessary because the facts were not in dispute. On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Reynoso argued that the District Court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing. The First Circuit affirmed the contempt order, holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required when the record reveals no genuine dispute of material fact, and that Reynoso failed to identify any evidence that would have created such a dispute regarding any element necessary for a civil contempt finding. View "US v. Reynoso" on Justia Law

Woodcock v. Univ. of Kentucky

2026-08-24T11:30:06-08:00

A tenured law professor at a state university posted an online petition calling for military action against Israel. The university responded by placing the professor on administrative leave and restricting his campus access while it investigated whether his actions violated university policy or law. The investigation included notices to the professor, requests for evidence, and allegations from students, but had not progressed beyond the preliminary fact-finding stage. No formal hearing or charges had been initiated by the university at the time of the lawsuit. The professor filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the university’s actions. The university moved for abstention under the doctrine established in *Younger v. Harris*, arguing that the ongoing university investigation constituted a state proceeding warranting federal court abstention. The district court agreed with the university and abstained from hearing the case, prompting the professor to appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s abstention decision de novo. The Sixth Circuit held that the university’s investigation was still in a preliminary, investigatory stage and did not constitute an ongoing formal proceeding as required under the *Younger* abstention framework. The court distinguished the circumstances from prior cases involving formal disciplinary hearings, noting that no formal charges or hearings had yet been initiated. As a result, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision to abstain and remanded the case for consideration of the professor’s motion for a preliminary injunction. View "Woodcock v. Univ. of Kentucky" on Justia Law

ALLER v. STATE

2026-08-24T09:02:03-08:00

The petitioner, who served as president of a company selected by a school district to develop and manage two middle schools, was indicted by a state grand jury on felony counts related to alleged violations of procurement rules during the project. The indictment was initially remanded because the wrong version of the procurement code was presented to the grand jury. After a second presentation, a new indictment was issued. The State later dismissed the charges with prejudice, citing the passage of time and evidentiary concerns. The petitioner, who lawfully possessed the grand jury transcripts, sought permission from the Superior Court in Maricopa County to use those transcripts in a civil lawsuit against the State and its agents for malicious prosecution, alleging fabricated evidence led to his indictment. The Superior Court denied the motion, reasoning that the petitioner could rely on the publicly available Auditor General Report to prove his claims in the civil action, and thus had no "particularized need" for the grand jury transcripts. The court also found no possible injustice because relevant information was accessible from public records. The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, accepted special action jurisdiction and upheld the Superior Court’s ruling, agreeing that the petitioner failed to establish prejudice or a need for the transcripts outweighing grand jury secrecy. The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reversed the lower courts' decisions. It held that the "particularized need" framework, as established in State ex rel. Ronan v. Superior Court, applies to requests by former defendants who lawfully possess grand jury transcripts and seek to use them in subsequent civil actions. The Court found error in the Superior Court’s conclusion that public records were a functional equivalent to grand jury transcripts and remanded for an in camera review to balance the petitioner’s need against societal interests in grand jury secrecy, and to determine appropriate conditions for transcript use. View "ALLER v. STATE" on Justia Law

Norcave Properties v. IRS

2026-08-21T15:30:34-08:00

A partnership claimed a charitable deduction after donating a conservation servitude on real property. The Internal Revenue Service audited the partnership’s tax filing and, in 2025, issued a Notice of Final Partnership Adjustment, disallowing the deduction and imposing both a civil fraud penalty and several valuation-related penalties for negligence, substantial understatement, and gross-valuation misstatements. The partnership responded by filing suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, seeking a pre-payment jury trial to contest the penalties and requesting both injunctive and declaratory relief. The partnership also filed a parallel petition with the U.S. Tax Court for a downward adjustment of the IRS’s determination. In the district court, both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings. The court granted the IRS’s motion and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, relying on the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) and the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA). The district court reasoned that the penalties imposed by the IRS constitute “tax” within the meaning of relevant statutes, thereby stripping federal courts of jurisdiction to hear pre-payment challenges to such assessments. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether accuracy-related penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6662 are treated as “tax” for purposes of the AIA and DJA. The Fifth Circuit held that these penalties are indeed treated as “tax,” and thus, both the AIA and DJA bar federal court jurisdiction over the partnership’s pre-payment challenge. The court further determined that Tax Court provides an alternative forum for such disputes. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Norcave Properties v. IRS" on Justia Law

In Re: Media Matters for America

2026-08-21T15:30:33-08:00

A nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C. published articles critical of a technology company and its CEO, which led to corporations pulling their advertisements from the company’s platform, resulting in significant losses for the company. The technology company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging interference with contract, business disparagement, and interference with prospective economic advantage under Texas law. The nonprofit and its employees sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim. After this was denied, and following further discovery showing that affected advertisers were not based in Texas, the nonprofit moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, citing venue statutes and a forum-selection clause. The district court denied both the motion to dismiss and the motion to transfer venue, finding that the transfer request was untimely and that the evidence was insufficient to show the Texas venue was improper. It also expressed concerns about the nonprofit’s litigation conduct and considered possible sanctions. The nonprofit then petitioned for a writ of mandamus from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, seeking to compel a venue transfer. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the petition in part. It held that the district court erred by failing to consider the required eight public- and private-interest factors when analyzing the transfer motion under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a), instead focusing solely on the timeliness of the motion. The Court ordered the district court to vacate its denial of the transfer motion and conduct a new venue analysis consistent with appellate precedent. The nonprofit’s related interlocutory appeal was held in abeyance pending the outcome of the remand. View "In Re: Media Matters for America" on Justia Law

1 Community Compact v. City of Fresno

2026-08-21T15:02:36-08:00

A city council adopted a resolution to rename three historically significant streets—East Kings Canyon Road, East Ventura Avenue, and West California Avenue—in honor of Cesar Chavez, a prominent labor leader and civil rights activist. The plaintiff, an association of residents and business owners on or near these streets, opposed the renaming, arguing that it disrupted their personal and community identities, imposed financial and administrative burdens, and forced them to be associated with a political figure they found objectionable. The association also alleged that the renaming process was procedurally unfair and failed to provide adequate notice or opportunity for input from those affected. After the city proceeded with the renaming, the plaintiff filed suit in the Superior Court of Fresno County, raising claims that the city’s action constituted an invalid exercise of police power, violated due process, infringed on free speech and association rights, amounted to waste of public funds, and denied equal protection. The Superior Court sustained the city’s demurrer to the due process, free speech, and equal protection claims, and granted summary judgment to the city on the police power and waste claims, finding the city’s actions valid and within its discretion. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, considered the case even though the city had reverted the street names after new information about Cesar Chavez emerged. Applying the public interest exception to mootness, the court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the renaming constituted government speech, which is generally not subject to free speech protections, and did not compel residents or business owners to espouse a particular message. The court further held that the city’s action was a valid exercise of its police power, reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, and that the use of public funds for the renaming was discretionary and not subject to challenge as waste. The court’s decision affirmed the judgment in favor of the city. View "1 Community Compact v. City of Fresno" on Justia Law

Godson v. Johns Hopkins Medicine

2026-08-21T08:32:48-08:00

Two individuals, both representing themselves, sought to appeal adverse decisions in separate civil cases. In the first case, a plaintiff filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act against a federal official. The district court denied this plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction, and the plaintiff subsequently submitted a document titled as both a “Notice of Appeal” and a “Motion to Transfer Appeal.” This document was filed 69 days after the district court’s order and included statements indicating the plaintiff had not received notice of the order and was requesting more time to appeal. In the second case, another plaintiff alleged mistreatment by a hospital and physician, but the district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. This plaintiff filed a notice of appeal 37 days after judgment, including various grievances but without clearly acknowledging the late filing or explicitly requesting relief for the delay. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia transmitted both notices to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The appellate court reviewed whether the notices of appeal could be construed as including motions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) or 4(a)(6), which allow late appeals in certain circumstances if specific requirements are met. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that a pro se notice of appeal should be liberally construed to include a motion for extension or to reopen the time to appeal if it reasonably recognizes the filing is late, provides reasons for the lateness, and seeks relief under Rule 4(a)(5) or (6). Applying this standard, the court found that the first plaintiff’s filing met these criteria and remanded that case to the district court for further proceedings. The second plaintiff’s notice did not meet the standard, and the court dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Godson v. Johns Hopkins Medicine" on Justia Law

Wilson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

2026-08-21T07:02:22-08:00

An incarcerated individual in Florida filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that prison officials failed to protect him from a cellmate with mental illness who subsequently assaulted him, causing serious injury. At the time he filed suit, the plaintiff requested to proceed in forma pauperis because he could not afford the filing fees. However, he had previously filed at least three federal actions that were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, triggering the “three-strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which generally bars further filings without prepayment unless the plaintiff demonstrates imminent danger of serious physical injury. A magistrate judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida screened the initial complaint, determined the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege imminent danger, and recommended dismissal under the PLRA’s three-strikes rule. The plaintiff objected, adding new factual allegations about ongoing threats and the continued presence and violence of his assailant, and formally requested leave to amend his complaint. The district judge adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissing the complaint without prejudice and refusing to consider the new allegations or grant leave to amend. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to either treat the plaintiff’s objections and supplemental allegations as an amendment to the complaint, which he was entitled to file as a matter of course under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), or as a motion to amend. The appellate court vacated the district court’s order of dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wilson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

US INVENTOR, INC. v. SQUIRES

2026-08-21T05:32:44-08:00

Several inventor-advocacy groups challenged the language used on the cover of patents issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), alleging that it is misleading. Specifically, they contended that the statement granting patent holders the “right to exclude others” is inaccurate following the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., which established that injunctions are no longer automatically granted to patent holders. The plaintiffs, all non-profit organizations supporting inventors, argued that the PTO’s failure to amend this language harms them because they must divert resources to educate their members about the true scope of patent rights. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case for lack of standing, holding that the plaintiffs had not shown a sufficient risk of future injury resulting from the challenged language. The district court also denied leave to amend the complaint, finding that any amendment would be futile. The plaintiffs appealed this decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the organizations failed to demonstrate organizational standing because their alleged injury—diverting resources to educate members—was foreclosed as a basis for standing by the Supreme Court’s decision in Food & Drug Admin. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not establish associational standing, as they did not identify any member facing a real and immediate threat of future injury from the patent cover language. The court concluded that amendment of the complaint would be futile, as the foundational deficiencies in establishing standing could not be remedied by further allegations. The judgment of the district court was therefore affirmed. View "US INVENTOR, INC. v. SQUIRES " on Justia Law

Ex parte Escambia County Commission

2026-08-21T05:31:01-08:00

After the death of Grady L. Floyd, Sr. in Escambia County, Alabama, his family members alleged that the local medical examiner, Dr. J. Daniel Raulerson, mishandled Grady’s remains. According to the family, Dr. Raulerson failed to properly store the body, resulting in advanced decomposition, which prevented an autopsy and required cremation rather than a traditional funeral. The plaintiffs attributed this mishandling to inadequate storage and refrigeration at the county morgue, which was located at the local hospital. The plaintiffs initially sued the Escambia County Commission, individual county commissioners in both their official and personal capacities, the hospital, and later the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences (ADFS). Their main allegations against the county defendants were based on a theory of vicarious liability for Dr. Raulerson’s actions, rather than any independent wrongdoing by the county or its commissioners. The Escambia Circuit Court denied the county defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims on immunity grounds, but granted ADFS’s motion to dismiss, finding it immune from suit. On mandamus review, the Supreme Court of Alabama considered whether the county defendants were immune from the plaintiffs’ claims. The court held that Dr. Raulerson, as medical examiner, was expressly granted immunity from civil liability for acts performed in his official capacity by § 45-27-60.11, Ala. Code 1975. Because the plaintiffs’ claims against the county defendants were entirely derivative of Dr. Raulerson’s acts, and he was immune, the county defendants could not be held vicariously liable. The Supreme Court of Alabama therefore granted the petition for writ of mandamus and directed the trial court to dismiss all claims against the county defendants. View "Ex parte Escambia County Commission" on Justia Law

Ivy Fund Manager, LLC v. CDH Real Estate Investment Management Company, Ltd.

2026-08-21T05:30:58-08:00

A real estate investment firm based in China and another firm based in Singapore entered into a joint venture in 2021 to develop and operate a property near Auburn University. The Chinese firm held an 80% interest, while the Singaporean firm held a 20% interest and managed the venture, with full access to the joint venture’s bank accounts. The Chinese firm alleged that the manager firm made unauthorized transfers from the joint venture’s accounts, ultimately taking over $1 million. Despite partial repayment and assurances, a significant amount remained outstanding. The Chinese firm filed suit in the Lee Circuit Court, Alabama, asserting claims including declaratory judgment, fraudulent misrepresentation, conversion, and fraudulent suppression. The Singaporean firm failed to timely respond to the complaint, leading to requests for default judgment. After some delay, the manager filed an answer and engaged in discovery, but disputes arose over depositions and compliance with court orders. The trial court repeatedly addressed motions for default judgment and issues of discovery noncompliance, particularly regarding the failure of the manager’s CEO to appear for deposition. The manager later moved to compel arbitration, citing joint venture agreements containing arbitration clauses; however, the trial court ultimately entered a default judgment on liability for the Chinese firm, reserving damages, and deemed the motion to compel arbitration moot. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama considered whether it had jurisdiction, given that the lower court’s judgment did not resolve damages. The Supreme Court of Alabama held that the order was interlocutory and not appealable because it did not determine damages. The court concluded that the default judgment’s interlocutory nature was not altered by the ruling on the arbitration motion, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal for lack of a final judgment. View "Ivy Fund Manager, LLC v. CDH Real Estate Investment Management Company, Ltd." on Justia Law

Bazan v. Gonser

2026-08-21T05:09:18-08:00

The case arose from a vehicle collision on Interstate 80 in which the plaintiff, Bazan, was struck by a commercial semi-truck owned by Elite Fleet Hauling, LLC. Bazan sued the driver and the company, claiming the accident caused him to suffer a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), or concussion, necessitating ongoing treatment and resulting in significant damages. Elite Fleet admitted fault for the accident but disputed the causation, nature, and extent of Bazan’s injuries. A central issue was the admissibility of expert testimony regarding the cause and extent of Bazan’s alleged brain injury. During the litigation in the District Court for Cass County, Bazan sought to present expert testimony from his treating physician, Dr. Aguila, on causation, permanency, and future medical costs. However, the district court determined that Bazan failed to comply with the expert disclosure requirements specified in its progression order, particularly the requirement for a complete statement of the expert’s opinion and its basis by a set deadline. As a result, the court limited Dr. Aguila’s testimony to treatment provided and excluded his opinions on causation, permanency, and future costs. Meanwhile, Elite Fleet was permitted to present expert testimony from Dr. Ernst, a licensed neuropsychologist, who opined that Bazan did not sustain an mTBI in the collision, over Bazan’s objection that Dr. Ernst was not qualified to render such a diagnosis. The jury ultimately awarded Bazan $100,000, substantially less than he sought. Bazan’s motion for a new trial, challenging the expert witness rulings, was denied. Upon review, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing its progression order by excluding Dr. Aguila’s expert opinions due to inadequate and untimely disclosures. The Court also held that Dr. Ernst was qualified under Nebraska law to provide expert testimony on neuropsychological issues, including whether Bazan suffered an mTBI. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "Bazan v. Gonser" on Justia Law

Fitzmaurice v. City of Quincy

2026-08-21T04:07:24-08:00

The mayor of a city in Massachusetts decided to commission and install two ten-foot-tall bronze statues of Saint Michael and Saint Florian on the façade of a new public safety building, using public funds. Both figures are Catholic saints, recognized for their religious significance and as patron symbols of police and firefighters. The statues were to be the only adornments on the building, which serves various public functions and is located on a prominent city street. The city had already spent over $760,000 on the statues, with additional costs anticipated for their installation. News of the statues’ religious symbolism led to significant public opposition, including protests, petitions, and statements from local faith leaders expressing concern about the exclusionary message conveyed by featuring only Catholic figures on a municipal building. Fifteen city residents and taxpayers filed suit in Norfolk County Superior Court against the city and the mayor in his official capacity. They sought to enjoin further expenditure of public funds and prohibit installation of the statues, arguing that the actions violated Article 3 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, as amended, which bars the establishment or subordination of any religious sect. The Superior Court judge granted a preliminary injunction stopping further installation and denied the city’s motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiffs had standing as taxpayers and had shown a likelihood of success under the standard set in *Colo v. Treasurer & Receiver General*. On direct appellate review, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the Superior Court’s orders. The Court held that the plaintiffs had standing under the ten-taxpayer statute and that the constitutionality of the statues must be analyzed under the framework set out in *Colo*, which emphasizes constitutional text, history, purpose, and factors such as secular purpose, primary effect, and potential for divisiveness. The Court concluded that the statues likely violated Article 3 by conveying government endorsement of a particular religion, and that the public interest favored an injunction. The orders granting the preliminary injunction and denying the motion to dismiss were affirmed. View "Fitzmaurice v. City of Quincy" on Justia Law

Hughey v. Tippah County

2026-08-20T15:30:31-08:00

James Hughey, who suffered from medical conditions that sometimes caused confusion, entered the home of his ex-girlfriend’s sister while confused. The sister called Deputy Tommy Mason, her ex-husband and a Tippah County sheriff’s deputy, who responded to the scene. Mason used force against Hughey, resulting in severe injuries. Hughey, through his estate, brought claims against Mason for excessive force under federal law and for assault and battery under Mississippi law. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Mason moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting qualified immunity. The district court granted Mason’s motion, finding that the complaint did not plead sufficient facts to overcome qualified immunity. Hughey subsequently moved to revise the judgment based on new deposition testimony and sought leave to amend the complaint, but the district court denied these requests. Hughey appealed the district court’s judgment, but later abandoned his claims against Tippah County and certain other arguments. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings. The Fifth Circuit held that Hughey’s complaint failed to allege facts necessary to show that Mason’s use of force was excessive or objectively unreasonable, specifically lacking details about the severity of the crime, whether Hughey posed a threat, or whether he resisted arrest. The court also found that Hughey had not identified clearly established law on the facts alleged that would defeat qualified immunity. Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hughey’s motion to revise the judgment or his request to amend the complaint. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the claims against Mason and dismissed the remainder of the appeal as abandoned. View "Hughey v. Tippah County" on Justia Law

Vick v. Vertical Enterprise, LLC

2026-08-20T09:31:38-08:00

After Missouri legalized recreational marijuana in 2022, local governments were permitted to impose an additional sales tax on dispensaries selling recreational marijuana. Dispensaries passed this tax on to their customers. However, the Missouri Supreme Court later ruled that counties could not levy this additional tax on dispensaries located within incorporated areas such as cities or towns. Following this ruling, a class of customers sued several dispensaries, alleging that the dispensaries unlawfully retained the collected county tax and sought restitution. The dispensaries removed the action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The plaintiffs then amended their complaint to limit the class to Missouri citizens and moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that the Local Controversy Exception to CAFA applied. The district court initially found that three of the four required elements for the exception were met but that the class had not sufficiently shown that more than two-thirds of its members were Missouri citizens. After a second amendment explicitly limited the class to Missouri citizens, the district court found all requirements met and remanded the case to state court. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered whether the operative pleading for determining CAFA jurisdiction was the first or second amended complaint. The court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, held that the most recent amended complaint governs jurisdiction. The Eighth Circuit also agreed that the Local Controversy Exception was satisfied and affirmed the district court’s remand order, holding that federal jurisdiction no longer existed once the class was limited to Missouri citizens. View "Vick v. Vertical Enterprise, LLC" on Justia Law

Western Mortgage v. Walker

2026-08-20T08:12:05-08:00

A dispute arose over a 2,300-acre land development project in Washington County, Utah. The owners, Keith and Lorin Walker, planned a large residential community but faced foreclosure following the 2008 financial crisis. To save the project, they entered into a contract with Western Mortgage & Realty Company, which agreed to clear the land’s title and transfer ownership to a jointly controlled entity. Western failed to form the promised entity, leading to litigation. Western sued to quiet title, and the Walkers counterclaimed for breach of contract and fiduciary duty, among other claims. The Fifth District Court held a bench trial, finding in favor of the Walkers on their breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims. The court imposed a constructive trust, awarded the Walkers monetary damages, and granted attorney fees as consequential damages for the breach of fiduciary duty. The Walkers were instructed to seek attorney fees through a post-trial motion under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 73. After trial, the parties signed a stipulation waiving appeals on prior rulings but reserving the right to appeal any future rulings regarding attorney fees. In their post-trial motion, the Walkers, for the first time, disclosed a hybrid contingency-hourly fee arrangement with their counsel. The district court accepted this late disclosure, finding that it was either for good cause or harmless, and awarded the Walkers consequential damages based on the contingency fee, increasing their monetary award and interest in the trust. On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah reversed the district court’s award of the contingency fee as consequential damages. The court held that attorney fees sought as consequential damages require disclosure under Rule 26, and their foreseeability and amount must be proven at trial. The Walkers’ failure to disclose and prove these elements was neither harmless nor for good cause. The Supreme Court instructed the district court to modify the damages award accordingly. View "Western Mortgage v. Walker" on Justia Law

8933 SQUARE KNOT TRUST VS. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

2026-08-20T07:25:12-08:00

A third party purchased a Las Vegas property in 2005 with a loan from Countrywide Home Loans, secured by a deed of trust. In 2012, Countrywide assigned the deed of trust to the Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM). That same year, after the borrower defaulted on homeowners’ association (HOA) payments, the HOA foreclosed, refusing Countrywide’s tender for the superpriority portion of its lien, and conveyed the property to 8933 Square Knot Trust (SKT). BNYM later initiated a federal quiet title action, resulting in a ruling that its deed of trust survived the HOA sale. After BNYM began foreclosure proceedings, SKT sent a statutory information request under NRS 107.200, did not receive a response, and sued BNYM in state court to stop foreclosure, seeking to quiet title and asserting additional claims, including under NRS 107.300 for BNYM’s failure to respond. The Eighth Judicial District Court initially dismissed SKT’s complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the dismissal of the NRS 107.300 claim, remanding for further proceedings. On remand, BNYM filed a second motion to dismiss, raising new arguments about statutory standing and subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court granted this motion and dismissed the claim. The Supreme Court of Nevada held that NRCP 12(g)(2) generally prohibits a party from filing a successive motion to dismiss based on grounds that could have been raised in an earlier motion, except for challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction, which may be raised at any time. The Court concluded that BNYM’s statutory standing argument was improperly raised in the second motion, but its subject-matter jurisdiction argument was permissible. The Court further held that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction at the outset and retained it throughout. The order of dismissal was reversed and the matter remanded. View "8933 SQUARE KNOT TRUST VS. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON" on Justia Law

KING-CRETE DRILLING, INC. V. WHITLEY COUNTY FISCAL COURT

2026-08-20T06:10:03-08:00

In the aftermath of severe flooding in Whitley County, Kentucky, the county government sought bids for infrastructure repair projects, specifying that bids should use unit pricing for materials. King-Crete Drilling, Inc. submitted bids and was awarded contracts for two projects. During the bidding and performance phase, King-Crete asserted that a county official directed it to rely on FEMA specifications for material quantities but assured payment for actual quantities required to complete the projects, even if these exceeded the bid amounts. After completing the work, King-Crete invoiced the county for the unit prices multiplied by the actual quantities used. The county, however, paid only the original bid amounts. King-Crete sued the county and the official, claiming breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and seeking to enforce oral modifications to the contract. The Whitley Circuit Court denied the county’s motion to dismiss, allowing the claims to proceed. The county and the official appealed. The Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled that the county was immune from suit due to sovereign immunity and dismissed all claims against it. The Court of Appeals also found the official could not be personally liable but remanded for further proceedings to clarify his immunity status. On discretionary review, the Supreme Court of Kentucky held that, while the Kentucky Model Procurement Code does not waive counties’ sovereign immunity, longstanding common law allows enforcement of express written contracts against counties. The Court reversed in part, holding that King-Crete’s claim to enforce the express written contract may proceed. However, the Court affirmed dismissal of claims based on oral contract modifications and unjust enrichment, as sovereign immunity bars such relief. The case was remanded to the circuit court to interpret the written contract’s terms and determine whether the county met its contractual obligations. View "KING-CRETE DRILLING, INC. V. WHITLEY COUNTY FISCAL COURT" on Justia Law

Hagfors vs. Fairview Health Services

2026-08-20T01:28:46-08:00

The case involved the death of Sara Hagfors on April 9, 2021. Her husband, Keith D. Hagfors, sought to bring a wrongful death action on behalf of her next of kin. Eighteen days before the statute of limitations expired, he petitioned to be appointed as trustee, as required by Minnesota law. However, before receiving the appointment, he served a summons and complaint on several healthcare defendants, alleging wrongful death. He was officially appointed trustee five days later and then filed the complaint. He did not re-serve the summons after his appointment but before the limitations period expired. The Ramsey County District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, concluding that Hagfors had not validly commenced the wrongful death action because he was not appointed trustee at the time of service. Hagfors attempted to have his appointment as trustee backdated via a nunc pro tunc order in the separate trustee proceeding, but the district court denied reconsideration, and Hagfors voluntarily dismissed any appeal related to that issue. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court, holding that serving the complaint before being appointed trustee rendered the action a nullity, and as an error-correcting court, it was bound by Minnesota Supreme Court precedent. The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether appointment as trustee is a condition precedent to commencing a wrongful death action under Minn. Stat. § 573.02. The court held that appointment as trustee is indeed a condition precedent to commencing such an action. Any attempt to begin a wrongful death action without being appointed trustee is a legal nullity, and subsequent appointment does not validate the original filing. The decision of the court of appeals was affirmed. View "Hagfors vs. Fairview Health Services" on Justia Law

Toy v. City & County of S.F.

2026-08-19T13:02:43-08:00

Three individuals filed a class action lawsuit against San Francisco, challenging new water rates adopted by the city’s Public Utility Commission in May 2023. The plaintiffs alleged that the new rates violated Proposition 218 of the California Constitution by including costs unrelated to the actual provision of water service, resulting in charges that exceeded the cost of service. Before adopting the new rates, the city provided required notice to ratepayers, including information about a 120-day period for legal challenges under the applicable validation statutes. The plaintiffs sought a refund, declaratory and equitable relief, and a writ of mandate. After the class action was filed, the City litigated the case for over a year. It participated in discovery, case management, and even moved for summary judgment, without initially arguing that the suit was procedurally improper. Eventually, the City moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that plaintiffs’ action was subject to the validation statutes, specifically Government Code section 53759 and Code of Civil Procedure sections 860 et seq., which require reverse validation actions attacking agency matters like water rates to be brought within 120 days and with specific notice by publication to all interested parties. The trial court (San Francisco County Superior Court) agreed with the City, finding the statutes mandatory and jurisdictional, and dismissed the case for failure to comply with the procedural requirements, including timely filing and appropriate notice. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the judgment de novo. The court held that compliance with the validation statutes was mandatory and jurisdictional. Plaintiffs’ failure to file a proper reverse validation action and to provide notice by publication deprived the court of jurisdiction. The court rejected arguments that the City had waived these requirements or that good cause existed for noncompliance. The judgment in favor of the City was affirmed. View "Toy v. City & County of S.F." on Justia Law

SEC v. Gastauer

2026-08-19T12:30:04-08:00

A German national was named as a relief defendant in a civil enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC alleged that he received approximately $3.3 million in funds, transferred from U.S.-based companies controlled by his son, who was a primary defendant in a securities fraud scheme. The SEC sought to recover those funds through disgorgement, claiming the money represented proceeds of illegal activity. The relief defendant maintained that he lived in Germany, had limited visits to the United States, and challenged the court's personal jurisdiction over him. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts initially denied the relief defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and later imposed sanctions against him for discovery violations. The court entered summary judgment for the SEC, ordering disgorgement. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit concluded in a prior decision that the district court could not establish personal jurisdiction over him by imputing the contacts of his son, and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court permitted the SEC to seek jurisdictional discovery regarding the relief defendant’s own contacts with the United States. The relief defendant did not oppose discovery, refused to participate further, and failed to communicate directly with the court. The district court sanctioned him by deeming facts establishing personal jurisdiction as admitted, and reinstated summary judgment for the full disgorgement amount. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the relief defendant forfeited or waived any challenge to the jurisdictional discovery process, the district court’s orders, and related arguments by failing to raise them in the district court after remand. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "SEC v. Gastauer" on Justia Law

5-Star General Store v. American Express Company

2026-08-19T12:30:03-08:00

A group of small merchants, including a store in Rhode Island, entered into arbitration agreements with a credit card company, which required arbitration of disputes before the American Arbitration Association (AAA). In August 2023, these merchants initiated thousands of arbitration proceedings against the company, challenging certain “swipe-fee” policies that they argued harmed small businesses. A dispute arose over the filing fees that the credit card company owed to the AAA. The AAA administrator determined the applicable fees and repeatedly warned both parties that the arbitrations would be administratively closed if the fees were not paid. The merchants paid their share of the fees, but the credit card company refused to pay, contesting the fee amount. As a result, in late February 2024, the AAA administratively closed the arbitrations. Subsequently, the merchants filed a class action in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, arguing that the company’s refusal to pay arbitration fees constituted a default and waiver of its right to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The credit card company moved to stay the litigation and compel arbitration. The District Court denied the motion, finding that the company had defaulted and waived its arbitration rights by failing to pay the required fees, and rejected the company’s argument that the merchants had acted with unclean hands. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court had the authority to decide whether the company’s conduct amounted to waiver or default under the FAA, and that the company’s deliberate refusal to pay arbitration fees, despite repeated warnings, constituted waiver and default. The First Circuit also found no error in the district court’s rejection of the unclean hands defense. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to stay and compel arbitration. View "5-Star General Store v. American Express Company" on Justia Law

Fonden v. FDIC

2026-08-19T06:30:10-08:00

A Swedish government agency managing a public pension fund initiated a consolidated class action for securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. The claims were brought against a third-party auditor and several former executives of a New York-based, federally insured commercial bank, which collapsed in 2023 after significant losses tied to a shift into cryptocurrency banking. The plaintiff alleged that the auditor and executives made false statements regarding the bank’s liquidity and risk management, leading to artificial inflation of the bank’s stock price and subsequent investor losses when the bank failed. After the bank’s collapse, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed as receiver. The FDIC intervened in the case and moved to dismiss, arguing that, under the Succession Clause of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), it had succeeded to all rights of the bank’s stockholders regarding the institution and its assets, thus “owning” the securities fraud claims. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York agreed and dismissed the complaint for lack of prudential standing, concluding that the claims had transferred to the FDIC and that the plaintiff had not exhausted required administrative remedies. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the statutory interpretation of the Succession Clause. The court held that the Clause does not transfer to the FDIC individual securities fraud claims brought under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, as these are not rights held by stockholders in their capacity as such, but rather as purchasers of securities. Additionally, the court found that administrative exhaustion was not required, as the claims were not against the failed bank or the FDIC as receiver. The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Fonden v. FDIC" on Justia Law

Burns v Polk

2026-08-18T10:00:55-08:00

A pretrial detainee housed in the Milwaukee County Jail alleged that, during a medical emergency involving COVID-19 symptoms, two correctional officers failed to provide adequate medical attention. He claimed that despite using his in-cell intercom to request help for chest pain and shortness of breath, the officers did not respond. Later, a nurse administered a COVID-19 test, but the detainee was never informed of the results, and his condition worsened until he eventually passed out and was hospitalized. After recovering, the detainee followed the jail’s grievance procedure by submitting a grievance through the electronic kiosk, updating it as his symptoms persisted, and eventually receiving a response from jail staff that closed the grievance. He did not appeal the grievance. The detainee later filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. Before discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the detainee failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that the detainee did not appeal his grievance and that the remedies were available to him, dismissing his assertion that the process was unavailable. Reviewing the appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a genuine dispute of material fact existed as to whether the jail’s grievance appeals process was actually available to the plaintiff. The Seventh Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment, finding that the detainee’s sworn declaration provided sufficient evidence to require further fact-finding, either through an evidentiary hearing or a jury trial if the exhaustion issue is intertwined with the merits. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Burns v Polk" on Justia Law

Leviss v. Madix

2026-08-18T09:33:28-08:00

This case involves three individuals who were cast members on a reality television show. The plaintiff was engaged in a secret sexual affair with another cast member, who was the longtime boyfriend of the defendant. The defendant discovered the affair after finding sexually explicit videos of the plaintiff on her boyfriend’s cell phone, which had been recorded without the plaintiff’s knowledge or consent. The defendant then made recordings of these videos and sent them to the plaintiff, along with a confrontational text message. The situation became widely publicized, leading to significant media attention and public scrutiny of the plaintiff. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County against both the boyfriend and the defendant, alleging claims for “revenge porn” under Civil Code section 1708.85, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The complaint alleged that the defendant accessed the boyfriend’s phone without authorization, made copies of the explicit videos, and disseminated them to others, resulting in harm to the plaintiff. The defendant responded by filing a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16), arguing that her actions were protected as speech on a matter of public interest. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the claims arose from private conduct, not protected activity. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the order denying the special motion to strike de novo. The court held that the defendant failed to meet her burden of showing that the plaintiff’s claims arose from constitutionally protected activity under section 425.16. Specifically, the court concluded that the alleged acquisition and dissemination of the private videos did not constitute conduct in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest. The order denying the special motion to strike was affirmed. View "Leviss v. Madix" on Justia Law

BIO-LAB, INC. v. TARTT

2026-08-18T04:05:57-08:00

In September 2024, a major fire at the Bio-Lab chemical facility in Rockdale County, Georgia, caused the release of a toxic chemical plume, resulting in an evacuation order for over 17,000 nearby residents. Many local residents subsequently sought medical attention for symptoms related to exposure to hazardous substances, including hydrogen cyanide. A group of affected residents and businesses filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Bio-Lab and related entities, alleging negligence, trespass, nuisance, and strict liability. However, the plaintiffs did not claim present physical injury; instead, they asserted an increased risk of future disease and sought, among other remedies, an injunction requiring the creation of a defendant-funded medical monitoring program. The defendants moved to dismiss the request for equitable relief, arguing that Georgia law does not permit medical monitoring as a remedy absent allegations of present physical injury. The federal district court, finding Georgia law unclear on this issue, certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Georgia: whether a plaintiff exposed to toxic substances without present physical injury may obtain equitable relief in the form of medical monitoring, and if so, what standard applies. The Supreme Court of Georgia responded that, under Georgia law, the availability of equitable relief depends on whether the plaintiff has suffered a legally cognizable injury and whether that injury meets the established criteria for equitable relief, including the absence of an adequate remedy at law and the imminence of harm. The court declined to decide whether the specific facts of this case warranted such relief, leaving that determination to the district court. Additionally, the court concluded that the precise form and scope of equitable relief in a federal diversity case is likely governed by federal law, not state law. The certified questions were thus answered only in part. View "BIO-LAB, INC. v. TARTT" on Justia Law

Warner v. Hillsborough County Clerk of Courts

2026-08-17T11:32:09-08:00

After being involved in an eviction proceeding in Hillsborough County, Florida, an individual deposited funds into the court registry, as required by state law. Over time, he changed addresses and updated his contact information in the state’s e-filing system, but did not always update his address with the county court. The county clerk attempted to notify him of unclaimed funds by mailing letters to an outdated address (despite repeated returned mailings) and by publishing notice in a local Spanish-language newspaper with very limited circulation in the county. The funds were eventually declared abandoned and forfeited to the county under a Florida statute. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of the county clerk. The district court found that publication in the local newspaper constituted constitutionally sufficient notice and that the forfeiture did not amount to an unconstitutional taking because statutory schemes for escheatment of abandoned property are generally permissible. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court held that the statute’s notice procedure is not facially unconstitutional because there are situations where publication alone may suffice—for instance, when the property owner is unknown. However, the court found the clerk’s application of the statute to this individual was unconstitutional. The clerk had access to alternative means of contact (including email and a valid mailing address in the state’s e-file system) but failed to use them, relying instead on methods not reasonably calculated to provide notice. The court also determined that the individual had not abandoned the funds, since he never received constitutionally adequate notice, and thus the county’s appropriation of the funds constituted an unconstitutional taking. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Warner v. Hillsborough County Clerk of Courts" on Justia Law

Batista-Reyes v. Paul

2026-08-17T06:30:03-08:00

In December 1993, a man was assaulted and robbed in a Troy, New York motel. The police investigation led by Sergeant Robert Paul focused on Luis Batista-Reyes as the main suspect, relying on written statements from two women, Laura Ashley Pullen and Shannon Houser, who identified Batista-Reyes as the perpetrator. Pullen became the key witness, testifying against Batista-Reyes before the grand jury and at trial. Batista-Reyes was convicted by a jury on all counts and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. Years later, in 2002, Pullen recanted her testimony in several letters, claiming Batista-Reyes was innocent and that she had been coerced by the prosecutor and possibly others into giving false statements. Based on these recantations, a special prosecutor re-investigated the case in 2016, concluding Pullen’s original testimony was untruthful and that the remaining evidence was weak. The state court subsequently vacated Batista-Reyes’s conviction and dismissed the indictment, resulting in his release after more than 24 years in prison. Batista-Reyes then filed a civil rights lawsuit against Paul in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleging malicious prosecution and fabrication of evidence under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted summary judgment for Paul, finding no genuine disputes of material fact regarding the alleged constitutional violations. Batista-Reyes appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Batista-Reyes had presented sufficient evidence to create genuine disputes of material fact on both claims, particularly regarding whether Paul coerced or fabricated evidence and whether probable cause existed. The court concluded the district court erred in granting summary judgment and reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Batista-Reyes v. Paul" on Justia Law

SW Nashville EB Owner, LLC v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty.

2026-08-14T11:30:39-08:00

The dispute centers on a property owner that purchased a vacant and dilapidated parcel in Nashville’s East Bank district, intending to redevelop it into a multi-family residential project in accordance with local zoning rules. The owner submitted a building permit application that, according to its allegations, fully complied with all applicable zoning requirements. However, in mid-2022, the local government placed an indefinite “development hold” on the property, effectively barring any consideration or approval of the permit. The stated reason was that authorities were assessing possible routes for a planned major roadway that might require acquisition of part of the property. As a result, the owner claims the property has become undevelopable and unsellable, resulting in millions of dollars in carrying costs. After unsuccessful efforts to have the hold lifted, the owner filed suit in state court, alleging violations of the Takings and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, where the defendants moved to dismiss on several grounds, including untimeliness and qualified immunity. The district court, on its own initiative, dismissed the complaint for lack of “jurisdictional” ripeness, reasoning that there had been no final decision on the permit application. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit considered only the ripeness issue. The court held that the owner’s claims were both constitutionally and prudentially ripe because the local government’s development hold constituted a definitive, final decision barring any development of the property. The appellate court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining issues. View "SW Nashville EB Owner, LLC v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty." on Justia Law

AECOM Technical Services v. Flatiron | AECOM

2026-08-14T08:32:14-08:00

Two infrastructure companies formed a joint venture to bid on a Colorado highway express lane project, relying on engineering designs from a subsidiary of one partner. After winning the contract, the joint venture entered a subcontract with the engineering firm that incorporated many of their earlier terms but added a liability cap. During the project, disputes arose over the design work, resulting in multiple redesigns and delays. The engineering firm submitted change orders for additional work, but the joint venture either failed to process them according to contract procedures or “shelved” them as litigation began. The engineering firm sued the joint venture in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, claiming breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The joint venture counterclaimed for breach of both the subcontract and the original teaming agreement, and later added a negligent misrepresentation claim. The district court dismissed the negligent misrepresentation counterclaim under the economic-loss rule and later granted summary judgment to the engineering firm on the teaming agreement counterclaim, holding that the subcontract superseded the earlier agreement and imposed a liability cap. The joint venture sought to add fraud counterclaims more than a year after the final pretrial order, but the district court denied this as untimely and prejudicial. The court also rejected the joint venture’s attempt to concede liability and assume the plaintiff’s role at trial, and denied its Rule 50 motions. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court held that the district court did not err in denying the joint venture’s various motions, including its attempt to add new counterclaims, to instruct the jury on an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, or to enter judgment against itself. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the engineering firm on all claims and counterclaims. View "AECOM Technical Services v. Flatiron | AECOM" on Justia Law

Sessoms v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc

2026-08-14T07:40:39-08:00

A fatal car accident involving an eighteen-year-old driving a 2013 Toyota Scion led to a lawsuit by the driver’s estate against Toyota and Subaru, who had jointly developed the vehicle. The plaintiff alleged negligence, product liability, and violations of North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, claiming that design defects caused the occupant compartment to collapse and a fire to spread, ultimately resulting in the driver’s death. During discovery, the plaintiff requested extensive documents and depositions, including English translations of Japanese-language materials. Toyota and Subaru objected to several document requests and deposition topics, and disputes arose regarding the timing and sufficiency of their responses. The Superior Court of Robeson County granted the plaintiff’s motions to compel, ordered the production of additional documents (including English translations), and mandated that Toyota and Subaru’s corporate representatives testify to all noticed deposition topics without further objection. When the defendants failed to comply as ordered, the trial court imposed sanctions, deeming certain facts established against them—including elements of duty and breach in the plaintiff’s product liability claim—and struck their regulatory compliance defense. Toyota and Subaru appealed, challenging the discovery and sanctions orders. The North Carolina Court of Appeals vacated the sanctions order and reversed the requirement to translate documents but otherwise affirmed the discovery order, holding that most of the trial court’s actions were not an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed only the remaining issues in the discovery order. It held that the trial court erred by enforcing a fourteen-day deadline for objections to document requests in deposition notices (rather than the seven days required by the rules), and by waiving defendants’ objections to deposition topics for not seeking a protective order. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the relevant portions of the Court of Appeals’ decision, instructed it to vacate the discovery order, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Sessoms v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc" on Justia Law

Face v. Face

2026-08-14T07:40:37-08:00

A married couple created a revocable trust during their marriage, transferring three properties into it. Both spouses were designated as co-trustees, sole beneficiaries, and settlors of the trust, retaining the right to amend or revoke it together. Following their separation and eventual divorce, they sold two of the properties and retained the third in the trust. Each party then asserted claims for equitable distribution of marital property. In a pretrial order, both parties stipulated that all necessary parties were properly before the court, that the three properties were marital property, and agreed on how the properties and proceeds would be divided. The District Court, Brunswick County, entered an equitable distribution order based on these stipulations. The defendant appealed, arguing that the revocable trust was a necessary party under Rule 19 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the trust was not joined. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to set aside the order. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s actions, holding that the trust was not a necessary party because, through their stipulations, the parties effectively revoked the trust. The Court of Appeals also found a clerical error in the order, remanding for correction. The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed whether a revocable trust must be joined in an equitable distribution proceeding when all settlors are already parties. The court held that Rule 19 does not require joinder of a revocable trust in such circumstances, as a judgment against the settlors binds the trust without affecting others’ rights. The decision of the Court of Appeals was modified and affirmed on this basis. View "Face v. Face" on Justia Law

Turpin v. Charlotte Latin Schools, Inc

2026-08-14T07:40:23-08:00

A married couple enrolled their children at a private school that, until the 2020–2021 academic year, offered a traditional curriculum. Following the events of summer 2020, the school shifted its curriculum to emphasize issues of race and gender identity. The parents became concerned after learning their sixth-grade child was exposed to controversial teachings and age-inappropriate materials. They joined a group of parents to express their concerns to the school’s leadership. After the parents met with school officials, the school abruptly expelled their children and accused the parents of making racist remarks, which the parents deny. The parents filed suit in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, alleging breach of contract, fraud, unfair and deceptive trade practices, defamation, and other claims. The trial court, Judge Lisa C. Bell presiding, dismissed all claims except for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The parents voluntarily dismissed that remaining claim to appeal. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of all other claims. The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case to determine whether the parents’ complaint satisfied the state’s “notice pleading” standard for surviving a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court held that the parents adequately alleged claims for breach of contract, fraud, unfair and deceptive trade practices based on their fraud allegations, and defamation. The court found that their breach of contract claim was viable because they alleged the school expelled their children under a false pretext, in violation of the contract. The fraud and defamation claims also survived due to sufficient factual allegations. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals in part and remanded for further proceedings on these claims, but affirmed or declined to review the dismissal of other claims. View "Turpin v. Charlotte Latin Schools, Inc" on Justia Law

Rodriguez v. Pan American Health Organization

2026-08-14T06:32:39-08:00

A group of Cuban doctors alleged that they were coerced by the Cuban government to participate in Brazil’s Mais Médicos program, which placed healthcare professionals in underserved communities. The doctors claimed that the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) enabled the Cuban government’s actions by acting as a financial intermediary, moving funds from Brazil to Cuba, while retaining a 5% fee. They asserted that PAHO’s conduct facilitated a human trafficking scheme, and they brought claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act on behalf of themselves and similarly situated Cuban medical professionals. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially denied PAHO’s motion to dismiss, finding that the doctors’ allegations, if true, would bring the case within the “commercial activity” exception to immunity under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed this denial, allowing the case to proceed. PAHO then filed a second, “factual” motion to dismiss, contesting the factual basis of the doctors’ claims and submitting evidence to support its immunity argument. In response, the district court granted the doctors’ request for limited jurisdictional discovery to resolve the factual disputes relevant to the immunity question. PAHO appealed the discovery order. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s discovery order at this stage. The court held that immediate appellate review under the collateral order doctrine does not extend to jurisdictional discovery orders issued after a judicial finding that the complaint adequately pleads an immunity exception, where discovery is directly related to those pleaded theories. The appeal was dismissed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Rodriguez v. Pan American Health Organization" on Justia Law

Ex parte State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

2026-08-14T05:32:38-08:00

A couple alleged that their home in Union Springs suffered significant roof damage from a storm in January 2024. They had a homeowners’ insurance policy with an insurer and submitted a repair estimate of $9,112.02 to the company, which responded with a significantly lower settlement offer. The couple sued the insurer in the Bullock Circuit Court, claiming breach of contract and bad faith, and alleged a systematic practice by the insurer of underpaying roof claims. During discovery, the couple requested documents relating to the handling of roof claims. The insurer objected, citing concerns over the breadth of the requests and the confidential nature of certain documents. After both sides submitted competing motions for protective orders, the circuit court entered an order that allowed some confidential materials produced by the insurer to be used not only in the couple’s case but also in other cases handled by their counsel involving similar claims against the insurer. The order also permitted sharing information with governmental agencies under certain conditions. The insurer petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus, seeking to vacate the protective order and require a more restrictive, non-sharing version. The Supreme Court of Alabama held that there is no per se prohibition against sharing provisions in protective orders, provided there are adequate safeguards. The court concluded that the circuit court did not exceed its discretion in allowing sharing with government entities. However, it required the protective order to be modified to (1) specify the exact cases in which sharing is permitted, (2) require all recipients to agree in writing to be bound by the order and submit to the circuit court’s jurisdiction, and (3) clarify obligations for returning or destroying confidential materials at the conclusion of each case. The petition for mandamus was granted in part and denied in part, and the writ was issued accordingly. View "Ex parte State Farm Fire and Casualty Company" on Justia Law

Johnson v. Nichols

2026-08-14T01:23:19-08:00

A healthcare technology company formed in 2016 included the appellant as a founding member. The company’s operating agreement was modified several times, and in August 2020, the appellant assigned his membership interest to another member and a separate entity, ceasing to receive further distributions. Two years later, the appellant, through counsel, alleged that the assignment was executed under duress and fraud, and that there were improprieties with the amended operating agreements. In February 2024, the appellant, joined initially by another individual, filed suit against several members and the company, alleging negligent misrepresentation, securities violations, interference with contractual relations, conspiracy, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Harrison County Circuit Court, upon motion from the defendants, granted summary judgment, determining that all of the appellant’s claims were barred by Mississippi’s three-year statute of limitations. The court held that the appellant’s injury accrued at the time of the assignment in August 2020, and that the complaint filed in February 2024 was untimely. Arguments regarding forgery of an earlier operating agreement were found irrelevant to the assignment. Subsequent efforts by the appellant to supplement the appellate record with new evidence were denied after a limited remand from the Supreme Court of Mississippi. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed only the appellant’s arguments concerning the denial of record supplementation, as he failed to challenge the grant of summary judgment in his primary brief. The Court held that issues not raised in the appellant’s initial brief are waived, and the pro se status of the appellant did not excuse this failure. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in denying the request to supplement the record. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. View "Johnson v. Nichols" on Justia Law

W.M.M. v. Trump

2026-08-13T15:30:29-08:00

Three Venezuelan nationals, alleged by the government to be members of the Tren de Aragua gang, were detained in Texas following a presidential proclamation under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). This proclamation, issued in March 2025, authorized immediate removal of Venezuelan citizens aged fourteen or older, residing in the United States, who were not naturalized or lawful permanent residents and were identified as members of the gang. The petitioners challenged the proclamation, arguing that it exceeded the President’s authority under the AEA and violated due process rights. They sought class certification and injunctive relief to prevent removal under the AEA. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied temporary restraining orders and class certification. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit initially dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, in A.A.R.P. v. Trump, vacated that dismissal and remanded, instructing the Fifth Circuit to address two issues: whether the petitioners were entitled to a preliminary injunction against removal under the AEA, and whether the notice provided for due process claims was sufficient for the putative class. The Supreme Court also allowed the government to remove the petitioners under other lawful authorities. After remand, the three named petitioners were removed from the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), not the AEA. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that, because the petitioners were no longer in the country and no class had been certified, it was impossible to grant any effectual relief. The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot for lack of jurisdiction, declining to substitute new class representatives on appeal but leaving open the possibility for future proceedings in the district court. View "W.M.M. v. Trump" on Justia Law

Chapman v Burke

2026-08-13T07:00:47-08:00

Reginald Chapman was convicted by an Illinois state court jury of murdering Angela Butler and her son, C.B., in 1998. After his conviction, Chapman sought post-conviction DNA testing on evidence collected during the investigation that had not been tested or could be tested with new technology. He filed a motion under 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/116-3, the Illinois statute governing post-conviction DNA testing. Although the county prosecutor’s office initially agreed to DNA testing, the state court rejected the agreement and dismissed Chapman’s motion, finding the evidence at trial was overwhelming and that further testing would not have altered the verdict. Chapman appealed, but the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal, and the Illinois Supreme Court denied his request for review. Following the denial in state court, Chapman filed a suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Cook County State’s Attorney, Eileen O’Neill Burke. He challenged the constitutionality of the Illinois post-conviction DNA testing statute on its face under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that Chapman had standing to sue, as his injury was fairly traceable to Burke’s refusal to allow DNA testing. The court also held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar Chapman’s federal claim because he was challenging the constitutionality of the statute itself, not seeking to overturn the state court judgment. Therefore, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Chapman v Burke" on Justia Law

LPP Mortgage Ltd. v. Underwood Towers Ltd. Partnership

2026-08-13T04:04:14-08:00

Underwood Towers Limited Partnership leased land from the city of Hartford to build apartment buildings and financed the project with a mortgage loan. After defaulting, Underwood executed additional notes and a second mortgage in favor of HUD. Following further defaults and transfers, LPP Mortgage Inc. acquired the second mortgage and notes but did not receive the original of one note—only a lost note affidavit. LPP Mortgage then brought a foreclosure action, seeking not only to foreclose the mortgage but also damages against Underwood and its management agent, CDC Management Corporation. The Superior Court, Complex Litigation Docket, denied Underwood and CDC’s motion to dismiss, ruling that LPP Mortgage had standing to foreclose as the owner of the debt, even without possession of the lost note, relying on New England Savings Bank v. Bedford Realty Corp. Judgment of strict foreclosure and damages was entered. On appeal, the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed, concluding that LPP Mortgage had standing to pursue foreclosure as the debt owner, despite not being able to enforce the note under the UCC. The case was remanded for setting new law days. After remand, Underwood and CDC again moved to dismiss, arguing that the Connecticut Supreme Court’s later decision in Bank of New York Mellon v. Tope changed the law, requiring possession of the note to foreclose. The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case after transfer from the Appellate Court. The Court held that res judicata barred Underwood and CDC from relitigating LPP Mortgage’s standing, as the issue had already been fully litigated and decided by the Appellate Court. The Supreme Court further held that Bank of New York Mellon v. Tope did not overrule Bedford Realty Corp., and thus the law had not changed. The trial court’s denial of the motions to dismiss was affirmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "LPP Mortgage Ltd. v. Underwood Towers Ltd. Partnership" on Justia Law

Ralston v. Board of Land and Natural Resources.

2026-08-12T12:34:45-08:00

The petitioner challenged the renewal of an annual permit granted to a hotel operator for the use of state-owned, ceded lands fronting the Kahala Hotel. The permit, which allowed the hotel to use the land for recreational and maintenance purposes, was extended several times by the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR). The petitioner requested a contested case hearing (CCH) during a public meeting about the most recent renewal, arguing that the practice of pre-setting lounge chairs on the land discouraged public use. The BLNR denied the request for a hearing and approved the permit renewal. The petitioner appealed this denial. The Circuit Court of the First Circuit affirmed the BLNR’s actions, rejecting the petitioner’s arguments. The petitioner then appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), which found that the petitioner had a constitutionally protected property interest in a clean and healthful environment under the Hawai‘i Constitution. The ICA concluded that the petitioner was entitled to a CCH and that the denial of such a hearing violated procedural due process. However, since the permit had expired, the ICA remanded the case to the circuit court to determine what relief could be granted, and denied the petitioner’s request for attorney fees under the private attorney general (PAG) doctrine, finding that the requirements for the doctrine had not yet been satisfied. Upon certiorari, the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i held that the PAG doctrine does not require a party to obtain further relief before recovering attorney fees, and that all requirements for the doctrine were met. The court ruled that the hotel operator is liable for all reasonable attorney fees incurred by the petitioner during the certiorari proceedings, including fees for seeking fees, and remanded to the ICA to determine the amount of reasonable fees for the appellate stage. View "Ralston v. Board of Land and Natural Resources." on Justia Law

Mary D. v. McCauley

2026-08-12T12:33:47-08:00

The case concerns a civil lawsuit brought by a woman, identified by pseudonym, against her uncle and godfather for sexual abuse that occurred when she was a minor. The defendant was previously convicted in a criminal court for related offenses and was incarcerated at the time the civil suit commenced. The plaintiff sought significant compensatory and punitive damages for the injuries suffered due to years of abuse, and a jury ultimately found the defendant liable for several torts, awarding millions in damages. Prior to the civil trial in the Superior Court of Alameda County, the defendant initially had legal representation, paid for with personal funds. However, after those funds were exhausted, he was unable to access additional money held in a blocked account due to an order in his divorce proceedings. The defendant, while incarcerated and unrepresented, made several attempts to gain access to these funds to retain new counsel, but delays in the family court process and issues with notice and communication impeded his efforts. The trial court granted multiple continuances as the defendant sought to resolve the funding issue, but ultimately denied further requests for continuance even after he finally obtained access to some funds, resulting in his proceeding to trial without counsel. The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s requests for a continuance. The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion and violated the defendant’s constitutional right to meaningful court access by refusing to grant a continuance once he had obtained funds to retain counsel. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, including on the issue of punitive damages, instructing the trial court to ensure the defendant’s meaningful access to the court consistent with established precedent if he continues to meet the relevant criteria. View "Mary D. v. McCauley" on Justia Law

AL-NOURI V. RUBIO

2026-08-12T08:31:40-08:00

A naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Iraq was sought for extradition by the Iraqi government to stand trial for two counts of premeditated murder. Iraq alleged that he served as a local leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), involved in the planning and execution of the murders of two Iraqi police officers in Fallujah in 2006. The extradition request was supported by witness statements, including those from a cooperating witness and eyewitnesses who placed him at the scene and described his participation. The defendant had previously fled Iraq for Syria before coming to the United States. After Iraq’s extradition request, the United States filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, where a magistrate judge certified the defendant’s extradition. The defendant challenged the certification through a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He argued that there was not sufficient probable cause for the charges, that the alleged offenses constituted political acts covered by the political offense exception in the U.S.-Iraq Extradition Treaty, that humanitarian considerations should bar extradition, and that Iraq might prosecute him for offenses beyond those charged. The district court denied the habeas petition, finding the probable cause standard was met, the political offense exception inapplicable, and declining to consider humanitarian grounds or speculative future prosecutions. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. The court held that competent evidence supported probable cause for the charged murders, the district court correctly excluded newly submitted contradictory declarations, and the political offense exception did not apply because AQI was not part of the domestic Sunni insurgency but an international terrorist organization. The panel also held that humanitarian objections and speculative concerns about additional charges were not grounds for relief in this context. View "AL-NOURI V. RUBIO" on Justia Law

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LTD. V. ANTRIX CORP. LTD.

2026-08-12T08:01:30-08:00

Devas Multimedia Private Limited, an Indian corporation, along with several related entities, sought to confirm a $562.5 million international arbitral award against Antrix Corporation Limited, a company wholly owned by India. The award stemmed from a 2005 agreement between Devas and Antrix, under which Antrix was to provide satellite capacity to Devas in exchange for fees. In 2011, Antrix terminated the agreement following a policy decision by the Indian government. Devas initiated arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce, which resulted in an award in Devas’s favor. Devas then petitioned to confirm the award under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“New York Convention”) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The district court confirmed the award, finding it had subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) arbitration exception and the New York Convention, and personal jurisdiction under the FSIA. The court also rejected Antrix’s argument that the case should be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Antrix appealed, and the Ninth Circuit initially ruled in Antrix’s favor on personal jurisdiction grounds. However, the Supreme Court in CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp., 605 U.S. 223 (2025), reversed, holding that the FSIA does not require a minimum contacts analysis beyond its statutory provisions, and remanded for consideration of alternative arguments. On remand, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the FSIA’s arbitration exception supplied subject matter jurisdiction, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Antrix was reasonable and comported with the Fifth Amendment, and that forum non conveniens does not apply to actions to confirm foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in part, and reversed and vacated in part on issues related to the standing of certain intervenors, remanding for further proceedings. View "DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LTD. V. ANTRIX CORP. LTD." on Justia Law

Atlas Data Privacy Corp. v. We Inform, LLC

2026-08-12T06:09:09-08:00

A group of plaintiffs, including a data privacy company serving public officials and several individually named police and correctional officers, alleged that a broad range of defendants, such as data brokers and marketing companies, continued to disclose the home addresses and phone numbers of individuals protected under Daniel’s Law after receiving formal requests to cease disclosure. The data privacy company, acting as an assignee for thousands of covered persons, facilitated these take-down requests. Plaintiffs claimed that, despite notice, defendants failed to comply within the statutory period, exposing individuals to risks such as stalking and threats. After the plaintiffs filed numerous civil actions in New Jersey state court, defendants removed the cases to federal court, where the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, with a judge from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania presiding, consolidated and considered the cases. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Daniel’s Law was facially unconstitutional, particularly objecting to the apparent lack of a mental state requirement for liability. The district court denied the motions, reasoning that the statute could be interpreted to require at least negligence, not strict liability, for actual damages, to avoid constitutional concerns. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit certified to the Supreme Court of New Jersey the question of whether Daniel’s Law requires a mental state for liability. The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that Daniel’s Law, as currently written, does not require any mental state—such as negligence, knowledge, or recklessness—to impose liability for actual damages under its civil cause of action. The Court based its decision on the statute’s text, legislative history, and the legislature’s omission of a mental state requirement where such language was used elsewhere in the statute. View "Atlas Data Privacy Corp. v. We Inform, LLC" on Justia Law

Camara v. Gill Dairy, L.L.C.

2026-08-12T05:00:48-08:00

A worker was severely injured while operating a piece of agricultural machinery at his place of employment. The machine’s power take-off (PTO) shaft, which should have been equipped with safety guards, lacked those guards at the time of the accident. The worker alleged that the absence of these safety guards was due to his employer’s deliberate removal, and that this action directly caused his injuries. He sued his employer for an intentional tort under Ohio law, specifically invoking a statutory provision that creates a rebuttable presumption of intent to injure when an employer deliberately removes an equipment safety guard and an injury results. The Madison County Court of Common Pleas denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the employer had deliberately removed the safety guard. The case proceeded to trial, where the jury heard evidence about the condition of the machinery, the employer’s repair practices, and the employer’s responses to safety concerns. The jury found in favor of the worker, awarding significant compensatory damages for his injuries. On appeal, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the evidence did not support a finding of deliberate removal as a matter of law, and that the statutory presumption did not apply unless the employer both removed the guard and made a conscious decision not to replace it. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the court of appeals. It held that when reviewing the denial of summary judgment after a trial, appellate courts must consider the full trial record, not just the pretrial record. The court further held that the statutory presumption applies when there is evidence of deliberate removal of a safety guard, and that courts may not require proof of a separate, additional decision not to replace the guard. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this holding. View "Camara v. Gill Dairy, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Cosel v. Wendt

2026-08-11T13:30:03-08:00

A woman and her husband, after marrying, received a parcel of real estate from her parents, which they held as tenants by the entirety in Massachusetts. They planned and undertook substantial renovations, initially funded by gifts from the husband’s parents. When those funds ran out, the husband’s parents provided over $1.5 million more, which was later documented as a loan in a promissory note signed only by the husband, not the wife. The couple’s marriage deteriorated, leading to divorce proceedings. During the divorce, the husband’s parents obtained a default judgment against the husband (but not the wife) for the loan and secured a writ of execution against his interest in the property, which was recorded. After the divorce, the family court awarded the property solely to the wife, free from any claim by the husband, and clarified that it could not adjudicate the parents’ rights under the promissory note. Subsequently, the husband’s parents transferred their judgment to a family trust, which noticed a sheriff’s sale of the husband’s purported interest in the property. The wife sued in state court to stop the sale, the case was removed to federal court, and both sides sought summary judgment. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment to the wife, holding that the divorce and property distribution extinguished the creditor’s interest and that, even if the loan were valid, the wife was not jointly liable because the funds were not spent on “necessaries” under Massachusetts law. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the district court’s prediction of state law concerning the effect of divorce on a creditor’s interest and remanded for factual findings on the validity of the loan as to the wife. The court also found that neither preclusion nor the state’s domestic relations exception barred the wife’s challenge, and that factual disputes remained as to whether the loan was spent on necessaries. The court affirmed, reversed, and vacated in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "Cosel v. Wendt" on Justia Law

Homie Technology v. National Association of Realtors

2026-08-11T11:32:06-08:00

A technology-focused real estate brokerage entered the Utah residential property market in 2015, offering lower commissions to disrupt traditional pricing structures. Initially, the company achieved significant success, becoming one of the largest brokerages by market share in Utah. However, it alleged that its growth was stymied by an organized boycott from local real estate brokers and agents who, dissatisfied with the lower commissions it offered, began “steering” clients away from its listings. The brokerage attributed this behavior to rules set by a national real estate trade association, which it claimed enabled brokers to filter and avoid displaying properties based on commission rates. The company filed suit in 2024 in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, asserting violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Utah Antitrust Act, and tortious interference with economic relations. The defendants—comprised of the national association and several large brokerages—moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the claims were time-barred under applicable statutes of limitations and that the plaintiff had not sufficiently alleged an antitrust injury. The district court granted the motion, holding that the claims were untimely and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate both antitrust injury and intentional interference with business relationships. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court ruled that the antitrust claims were time-barred because the challenged rules had been adopted more than four years before the suit was filed and the plaintiff was not entitled to the continuing conspiracy exception. The court found that the rules themselves did not plausibly constitute a conspiracy to exclude competitors, and actions by unidentified brokers did not extend the limitations period. As a result, the case could not proceed. View "Homie Technology v. National Association of Realtors" on Justia Law

DURALEV V. USA

2026-08-11T08:01:43-08:00

A Russian citizen entered the United States on a B-2 visitor visa in 2015 and subsequently applied for asylum and work authorization. In 2018, he was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after appearing for an interview, and was later ordered removed by an immigration judge. He remained in detention for 525 days, during which time he alleges he was assaulted by detention center staff. Upon release on bond in 2020, he applied for employment authorization but his application was denied based on an alleged miscalculation by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Seeking damages for unlawful arrest, detention, in-custody assault, and denial of employment authorization, the plaintiff filed an administrative claim with the Department of Homeland Security in July 2021, followed by this lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The district court dismissed all but one claim as time-barred under the FTCA’s two-year statute of limitations, finding the remaining timely negligence claim—related to the denial of employment authorization—lacked a private analog in state tort law as required by the FTCA. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that all claims arising from the plaintiff’s arrest, detention, or assault accrued outside the two-year limitations period and were therefore untimely. The court further held that the remaining negligence claim regarding employment authorization denial could not proceed because there is no comparable liability for a private individual under state law for the type of quasi-adjudicative decision at issue. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "DURALEV V. USA" on Justia Law

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. Mullin

2026-08-11T07:02:48-08:00

Several membership organizations representing immigrants challenged two actions taken by the Department of Homeland Security: a memorandum issued by the Acting Secretary and an email from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Both directed officers to consider subjecting parolees—immigrants temporarily allowed to enter the U.S.—to expedited removal, a process that is faster and offers fewer protections than formal removal proceedings. The organizations argued these directives increased the likelihood that their members would face expedited removal, causing injury. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the challenge and partially granted the plaintiffs’ request to stay the memorandum and email, but not the underlying regulation (8 C.F.R. § 1.2) that independently authorized expedited removal for parolees. The District Court’s stay thus blocked the challenged executive actions to the extent they would subject individuals paroled into the United States to expedited removal, but left the regulation intact. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit considered whether the plaintiffs had standing to seek the relief they requested. The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs failed to establish redressability, a necessary element of standing, because even if the memorandum and email were stayed, the government retained authority under the unchallenged regulation to subject parolees to expedited removal. Since the relief requested would not likely lessen the risk of expedited removal for the plaintiffs’ members, the appellate court concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court’s stay, finding that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to grant it. The main holding is that organizational plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge government actions unless the relief sought would likely redress their members’ alleged injuries. View "Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. Mullin" on Justia Law

THE LAMAR COMPANY, LLC v. NORTH FULTON OUTDOOR, LLC

2026-08-11T05:03:46-08:00

A company was ordered by a local Board of Zoning Appeals to remove LED displays from a billboard it was constructing. Disagreeing with this directive, the company sought judicial review in the Superior Court of Fulton County and brought additional claims. The superior court affirmed the Board's decision regarding the displays but left the company’s other claims unresolved. After this partial ruling, the company submitted a discretionary application for review to the Court of Appeals of Georgia. The Court of Appeals dismissed the application in an unpublished order, determining that the superior court’s decision was not final and thus not subject to discretionary appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(1), which governs appeals from superior court reviews of certain administrative actions. The appellate court also considered, but did not resolve, whether the superior court’s order functioned as an interlocutory injunction under OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(4), which could have permitted an immediate appeal. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case on certiorari. It held that the Court of Appeals erred by not considering whether the superior court’s order should be treated as an interlocutory injunction, which would allow immediate appeal by discretionary application. The Supreme Court clarified that OCGA §§ 5-6-34(a) and 5-6-35 are not conflicting but may overlap, and that certain immediately appealable orders may still require a discretionary application. The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’s dismissal and remanded the case for the appellate court to determine if the superior court’s order qualifies as an interlocutory injunction and whether it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. View "THE LAMAR COMPANY, LLC v. NORTH FULTON OUTDOOR, LLC" on Justia Law

GOODELL v. MOULTON

2026-08-11T04:16:27-08:00

After the end of their relationship, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against her former boyfriend, alleging that he transmitted genital herpes to her without disclosure. During discovery, she requested extensive medical records and information spanning more than a decade, including the identification of his healthcare providers and laboratory reports. The defendant objected, invoking his right to privacy under the Georgia Constitution, and the plaintiff moved to compel production. The defendant maintained that his medical information was constitutionally protected. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel, concluding that the medical records and information were protected by the Georgia constitutional right to privacy and that the defendant had not waived this right. The trial court did not explicitly balance the privacy right against any competing interests. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s ruling, reasoning that the hearing provided was sufficient protection for the privacy right. It held that since the plaintiff had a recognized claim and the information was not privileged under Georgia law, the trial court should have narrowly tailored discovery and considered protective orders. The appellate court remanded the case for the trial court to determine what discovery was appropriate. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case to clarify the legal standard for evaluating privacy claims in civil discovery of medical records. The court held that the Georgia Constitution protects a right to privacy in medical records but rejected the application of strict scrutiny in this context. Instead, the court reaffirmed that trial courts must apply a nuanced, case-by-case balancing approach, weighing the right to privacy against competing interests, as originally described in Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co. The Supreme Court of Georgia vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded for the trial court to apply this balancing test in the first instance. View "GOODELL v. MOULTON" on Justia Law

STATE OF COLORADO V. META PLATFORMS, INC.

2026-08-10T08:01:48-08:00

A large group of plaintiffs, including several states, individuals, school districts, and local governments, brought suit against Meta Platforms, Inc., and associated entities, alleging that Facebook and Instagram’s design features encourage addictive behavior and inadequately protect young users from harmful content. Additional defendants included TikTok-related entities, school districts, and others. The cases were consolidated in multidistrict litigation, where plaintiffs asserted various claims, including personal injury and state law violations. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California organized the litigation into several tracks based on the nature of the claims and plaintiffs. Meta moved to dismiss certain claims, arguing that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provided them with immunity. The district court granted the dismissal in part, finding some claims barred by Section 230, but denied dismissal as to others, particularly where claims did not target Meta’s role as a publisher of third-party content. Meta sought interlocutory appeal on some orders, which the district court denied, and then appealed other orders as of right under the collateral order doctrine. TikTok entities joined in Meta’s arguments. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether it had appellate jurisdiction to hear Meta’s and TikTok’s interlocutory appeals. The court held that Section 230 provides a defense to liability, not immunity from suit, and that the denial of such a defense is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. The court found none of the requirements for a collateral order were met, emphasizing that Section 230 does not constitute a statutory or constitutional guarantee against trial. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeals and cross-appeals for lack of jurisdiction. View "STATE OF COLORADO V. META PLATFORMS, INC." on Justia Law

Lopez v. Ritter

2026-08-10T07:15:13-08:00

Several years after a car accident in January 2015, Samantha Ritter brought a lawsuit against William Lopez for damages. Ritter attempted to serve Lopez at the address listed in the accident report, but the Campbell County Sheriff’s Office determined that the property was vacant and could not locate him. Ritter then pursued substituted service under Wyoming’s nonresident motorist statute, which involved serving the Secretary of State and mailing the summons and complaint to Lopez’s last known address. Despite multiple efforts—including contacting his insurer, making phone calls, and hiring a search service—Ritter was unable to find a current address for Lopez. After Lopez failed to respond, Ritter sought and was granted default judgment in the District Court of Campbell County. The case was later dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, but the district court reinstated the matter upon Ritter’s motion under Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure 60. After a hearing, the district court entered default judgment in Ritter’s favor and awarded her damages. Lopez’s subsequent Rule 60 motion to set aside the default judgment was denied, and he appealed. The Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming held that Lopez waived his challenge to the sufficiency of service and due process on appeal because he had not raised those issues below, except for the jurisdictional question of due diligence required for substituted service. The court found that Ritter had exercised sufficient due diligence to serve Lopez under the statute and that personal jurisdiction was properly established. The court also determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the reinstatement of the case because Lopez’s notice of appeal did not specify that order. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez’s Rule 60 motion. The decision was affirmed. View "Lopez v. Ritter" on Justia Law

S.A.S.B. CORP v. Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems Inc

2026-08-07T09:00:20-08:00

A Florida pharmacy received a two-page fax from subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson, which described a patient support program called Janssen CarePath that offered resources and savings options to help patients afford Xarelto, a prescription anticoagulant. The fax outlined how the program could assist patients regardless of their insurance status and included information about Xarelto’s uses and side effects, with instructions to explore savings options on a website. The pharmacy alleged that this fax was an unsolicited advertisement in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey initially dismissed the pharmacy’s complaint on two grounds: that the fax was not an advertisement under the TCPA and that the pharmacy did not plausibly allege the defendants had sent the fax. The pharmacy amended its complaint, and the defendants again moved to dismiss. The District Court granted the second motion solely on the basis that the fax did not qualify as an advertisement within the meaning of the TCPA, declining to address other arguments. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case, applying plenary review to the District Court's grant of the motion to dismiss. The Third Circuit held that a reasonable factfinder could determine the fax promoted Xarelto with profit as an aim, making it plausible that it was an unsolicited advertisement under the TCPA. The court also found that the pharmacy adequately alleged the defendants sent the fax and put both defendants on notice. The Third Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal, allowing the pharmacy's claim to proceed. View "S.A.S.B. CORP v. Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems Inc" on Justia Law

CSX Transportation, Inc. v Zayo Group, LLC

2026-08-07T06:00:45-08:00

A railroad company operates lines throughout Indiana, holding various property interests in its corridors, such as easements and fee simple ownership. A telecommunications utility installed fiber optic cables above and below some of these railroad tracks without the railroad’s permission, safety review, or payment of licensing fees required by the railroad. The railroad claimed that under Indiana law, its easements gave it exclusive rights to the airspace and subsurface, including the right to exclude third parties and charge for installations. In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, the railroad asserted claims including trespass, theft, and unjust enrichment. The district court dismissed all claims related to Illinois sites for lack of personal jurisdiction. For the Indiana properties where the railroad held only easements, the district court ruled that the railroad lacked standing to assert trespass and rent claims, finding that its easements did not necessarily include the right to exclude others from the air or subsurface where there was no interference with railroad operations. The court also held that claims based on older installations were time-barred, determining these did not constitute continuing trespasses under Indiana law. Before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the railroad argued its easements included exclusion and licensing rights, and that the installations were continuing trespasses. The Seventh Circuit held that, under Indiana law, railroad easements do not necessarily include the right to exclude third parties from the air or ground below the tracks, nor the right to charge licensing fees for such installations unless the railroad’s operations are disturbed. The court also affirmed that these installations are not continuing trespasses and that claims outside the applicable statute of limitations are barred. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "CSX Transportation, Inc. v Zayo Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Ex parte Association of County Commissions of Alabama Liability Self-Insurance Fund, Inc.

2026-08-07T05:30:46-08:00

A group of individuals who worked for Greene County sued the Greene County Commission, alleging negligence, outrage, trespass, and nuisance due to injuries from rodent infestations and faulty building systems in the county courthouse. The Greene County Commission was a member of a self-insurance fund operated by the Association of County Commissions of Alabama Liability Self-Insurance Fund, Inc. The association provided a defense to the county commission in the tort action under a reservation of rights. In June 2024, the association initiated a declaratory-judgment action against the county commission and the county workers, seeking a determination that certain claims were excluded from coverage under the insurance agreement and asserting it had no duty to defend the county commission in the tort action. The Greene Circuit Court heard motions to dismiss the declaratory-judgment action, with the county workers arguing it was not ripe until the tort action was resolved and the county commission contending the association was obligated to defend. On December 1, 2025, the circuit court stayed the declaratory-judgment action pending the outcome of the tort action, reasoning that resolving coverage issues could supersede issues already pending in the tort action. The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the association’s petition for a writ of mandamus to vacate the circuit court’s stay. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court exceeded its discretion by staying the declaratory-judgment action as it related to the association’s request for a determination of its duty to defend. The court granted the petition and issued a writ directing the circuit court to proceed with the declaratory-judgment action on the duty-to-defend issue, but not on indemnification issues. The disposition was to vacate the stay as to the duty to defend. View "Ex parte Association of County Commissions of Alabama Liability Self-Insurance Fund, Inc." on Justia Law

Johnson v. Cleveland

2026-08-07T01:19:43-08:00

A dispute arose over real property in Harrison County, Mississippi, after the land was sold to the state for unpaid taxes in August 2017 and subsequently conveyed to Jermille Johnson via forfeited tax land patents in 2021. Elizabeth Cleveland, who had lived on the property since the 1980s, filed a complaint in the Harrison County Chancery Court seeking to quiet title through adverse possession and to void the tax sale due to lack of proper notice. Cleveland asserted that she had acquired ownership by adverse possession over more than twenty years. The Harrison County Chancery Court found that Cleveland had standing to challenge the tax sale and land patents, and determined the sale was void because the required notice had not been given. The chancellor cancelled the land patents and returned the property to the county. Johnson appealed, and the Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed the chancery court’s judgment, holding that Cleveland lacked standing to challenge the tax sale and that Mississippi Code Section 29-1-21 barred such claims once land was struck off to the state. The appellate court remanded the case for consideration of Johnson’s counterclaim to quiet title. On certiorari, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed only the issue of Cleveland’s standing. The Court held that Cleveland has standing to challenge the tax sale because her adverse possession claim, if true, would have vested title in her by operation of law. Additionally, the unique facts of the case demonstrated an adverse impact sufficient to confer standing, as Cleveland faced losing her home. The Court rejected Johnson’s statutory argument, holding that other statutes permit challenges to tax sales. The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated and affirmed the judgment of the Harrison County Chancery Court. View "Johnson v. Cleveland" on Justia Law

US v. Boyd

2026-08-06T11:00:34-08:00

The case concerns Robert Boyd, who had a history of sexual offenses involving minors. After serving prison time for downloading child sexual abuse material, post-incarceration civil commitment proceedings were initiated against him under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. Boyd was designated a “sexually dangerous person” and committed to the custody of the Attorney General. Eight years later, Boyd was conditionally discharged after the district court concluded he no longer posed a threat if released under a strict treatment regimen. Conditions included supervision, participation in treatment, restrictions on internet usage, and prohibitions on possessing pornography. About a year after his conditional discharge, the Government sought to revoke Boyd’s release, alleging he violated his treatment regimen by possessing an SD card with images deemed pornographic and engaging in risk-related behaviors, such as interactions with underage individuals and unauthorized internet use. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina found Boyd in violation, determined he remained sexually dangerous, and revoked his conditional discharge, returning him to federal custody. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The court held that revocation of conditional discharge under the Adam Walsh Act requires the Government to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the individual failed to comply with their prescribed regimen, suffers from a serious mental disorder, and would have serious difficulty refraining from sexually violent conduct if released. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s findings, concluding there was sufficient evidence Boyd violated his regimen and posed a risk if allowed to remain in the community. The judgment revoking Boyd’s conditional discharge was affirmed. View "US v. Boyd" on Justia Law

Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC

2026-08-06T09:02:53-08:00

The plaintiff leased a new vehicle from the defendant, but soon experienced persistent defects that could not be repaired despite multiple attempts. After the defendant failed to promptly replace the vehicle or provide restitution under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the plaintiff filed suit for breach of warranty, seeking damages and attorney fees. During litigation, the defendant made a statutory settlement offer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998, presenting two alternative sets of terms: a lump-sum payment or a reimbursement option requiring proof of damages, both accompanied by provisions for attorney fees and costs. In the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the jury awarded the plaintiff damages totaling $76,155.27, less than the lump-sum alternative in the defendant’s 998 offer. The trial court found the offer valid, imposed section 998’s cost-shifting penalty, limited plaintiff’s postoffer costs and attorney fees, and awarded defendant its postoffer costs. The plaintiff appealed, contesting the validity of the alternative-choice offer. The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s awards, finding the lump-sum alternative sufficiently certain but deemed alternative-choice offers categorically invalid for cost-shifting purposes. The Supreme Court of California reviewed whether an offer under section 998 that presents two independent, alternative sets of terms for acceptance is categorically invalid due to uncertainty. The Court held that such an alternative-choice offer can be valid if it clearly presents the alternatives and at least one alternative is sufficiently certain to permit accurate valuation at the time the offer is made. If the judgment or award does not exceed the highest valued, valid alternative, cost-shifting under section 998 is permitted. The Court affirmed the trial court’s award, but rejected the Court of Appeal’s categorical prohibition of alternative-choice offers under section 998. View "Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC" on Justia Law

Scannell Properties #516 v. City of Edwardsville, Kansas

2026-08-06T08:32:12-08:00

Two businesses operating an industrial warehouse and distribution center in Bonner Springs, Kansas, were affected by an ordinance enacted by the neighboring City of Edwardsville. This ordinance prohibited vehicles weighing over six tons from traveling on 110th Street—the street dividing the two cities—unless the trucks were entering or exiting Edwardsville. As a result, heavy trucks serving the businesses could not access 110th Street to enter or exit their properties. In response, the businesses filed suit against Edwardsville and certain city officials, alleging violations of federal and state law and seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the ordinance. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal claims, including those under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Dormant Commerce Clause, and denied the request for a preliminary injunction. However, the district court declined to dismiss the remaining state-law claims, leaving them pending. While the appeal was pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Edwardsville repealed the challenged ordinance and replaced it with a new one. The new ordinance allowed southbound trucks to enter the businesses from 110th Street, though certain restrictions remained. The Tenth Circuit determined that the repeal and replacement of the ordinance rendered the appeal moot because the controversy over the original ordinance no longer existed. The court found no exception to mootness applied and declined to vacate the district court’s order or exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the dismissed claims. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Scannell Properties #516 v. City of Edwardsville, Kansas" on Justia Law

Seven Acquisition LLC vs. Williams

2026-08-06T01:20:32-08:00

A commercial tenant in Minneapolis, Seven Acquisition LLC, operated its business in a building owned by 700 Hennepin Holdings LLC and subject to a mortgage held by a bank. After the landlord failed to repair a leaking roof, Seven withheld rent, leading to an eviction action. Seven prevailed in arbitration against the landlord and was awarded damages. The landlord then defaulted on the mortgage, prompting the bank to initiate foreclosure proceedings and request the appointment of Gregg Williams as receiver. Despite claims of independence, Seven alleged Williams had significant prior business with the bank’s agent. As receiver, Williams controlled the property, but Seven alleged he refused necessary repairs and acted to evict them for the bank’s benefit. In response, Seven sought to have Williams removed as receiver, arguing he was not independent and failed in his duties, but the Hennepin County District Court denied this motion as untimely and unsupported by good cause. Seven then filed a separate lawsuit against Williams, asserting negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court dismissed the negligence claim based on quasi-judicial immunity, but allowed the fiduciary duty claim to proceed, finding factual questions regarding Williams’s independence and actions. Williams appealed, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed, holding that quasi-judicial immunity protected Williams from suit for all actions taken within the scope of his receivership, regardless of motive or alleged conspiracy with the bank. The Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed this decision. The court held that quasi-judicial immunity shields a court-appointed receiver from lawsuits for actions taken within the scope of the appointment, even if the receiver is alleged to have acted at the direction of a party or with improper motive. The complaint’s allegations were found insufficient to defeat this immunity. The decision of the court of appeals was affirmed. View "Seven Acquisition LLC vs. Williams" on Justia Law

Leviss v. Madix

2026-08-05T15:02:36-08:00

Three individuals, all cast members of a reality television show, became embroiled in a public scandal when one, Rachel Leviss, had a secret sexual affair with another cast member, Tom Sandoval, who was in a relationship with fellow cast member Ariana Madix. The affair came to light when Sandoval’s phone fell into Madix’s possession during a public event. Upon accessing his phone—using a passcode known to her from their longstanding relationship—Madix discovered and recorded sexually explicit videos of Leviss that Sandoval had secretly made. Madix then sent these videos to Leviss and informed the show’s production team, after which the affair became widely publicized. Leviss filed a civil suit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County against Sandoval and Madix, asserting causes of action for violation of privacy and “revenge porn,” among others. She alleged that Madix had obtained and disseminated the explicit videos without consent, causing Leviss emotional and reputational harm. Madix responded with a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16), arguing that her conduct was protected as activity in connection with a public issue involving public figures. The Superior Court denied Madix’s motion, finding that the conduct did not constitute protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, and that the gravamen of Leviss’s claims was private conduct, not public commentary. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The appellate court affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling, holding that Madix failed to meet her burden to show that Leviss’s claims arose from constitutionally protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court determined that the unauthorized acquisition and dissemination of private sexual videos did not qualify as conduct in connection with a public issue or a matter of public interest as required by the statute. View "Leviss v. Madix" on Justia Law

Sinclair v. Meisner

2026-08-05T11:30:37-08:00

Several homeowners lost their properties through foreclosure after failing to pay property taxes to Oakland County, Michigan. Although the properties’ values exceeded the tax debts, the County retained all surplus equity rather than refunding the difference to the owners. The affected individuals, represented by attorney Scott Smith and later the McAlpine PC firm, brought suit alleging that this retention violated the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Both cases were initially dismissed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs appealed. In the Hall case, the Pacific Legal Foundation represented the plaintiffs pro bono. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the County’s actions constituted a violation of the Takings Clause. The district court subsequently denied motions for class certification and the parties settled for $500,000. Plaintiffs then sought attorney fees totaling over $4.2 million, including hours spent on failed class certification and appeals largely handled by other counsel. The district court reduced the fee request by 40% and applied a 1.1 multiplier, awarding $1,361,476.51. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the fee award for abuse of discretion and determined that the district court erred in several respects. The appellate court held that hours spent on failed class certification, litigation against other defendants, and certain other tasks were not properly billable and should have been categorically excluded. The court also found that the hours claimed for appellate work and by Mark McAlpine were grossly excessive, and that the district court failed to address the reasonableness of the hourly rates. The Sixth Circuit vacated the fee award and remanded, instructing the district court to recalculate fees with specific exclusions, a blended $325 hourly rate, and a 1.1 multiplier. No fees were awarded for the present appeal. View "Sinclair v. Meisner" on Justia Law