Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Mary Ann Arnold worked for United Airlines from 1994 to 2020. She alleged age discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge after experiencing changes in her job responsibilities and being placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Arnold claimed these actions were due to her age and previous complaints about discrimination and harassment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of United Airlines on Arnold's claims of discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. The court dismissed her constructive discharge claim without prejudice, citing failure to exhaust administrative remedies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Arnold did not provide sufficient evidence to show that she suffered adverse employment actions due to age discrimination. The court also found that her retaliation claim failed because the actions taken by United were not materially adverse and were not shown to be causally connected to her complaints. Additionally, the court held that Arnold did not demonstrate a hostile work environment based on age, as the incidents she described were not severe or pervasive enough to meet the legal standard. The court also upheld the dismissal of her constructive discharge claim due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. View "Arnold v. United Airlines, Inc." on Justia Law

Sheila Prato, the plaintiff, and her company, Prato Properties, LLC, filed a civil complaint against Thomas John Gioia and Lee & Associates Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (the Lee Firm) for breach of fiduciary duty and intentional interference with contract. The case was dismissed without prejudice due to the plaintiffs' failure to appear at trial. At the time of the trial, Prato's attorney, Timothy McFarlin, had been rendered inactive and ineligible to practice law by the State Bar of California due to pending disciplinary proceedings. Prato was unaware of her attorney's status, but the defendants and their counsel were aware and did not inform her or the court.The Superior Court of Orange County dismissed the case without prejudice and subsequently awarded over $70,000 in attorney fees against Prato and her company. The trial court granted the defendants' motions for attorney fees despite Prato's opposition, which argued that the defendants failed to provide the required notice under section 286 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates that a party whose attorney has been removed or suspended must be given written notice to appoint another attorney or appear in person before further proceedings can be taken against them.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that the defendants' counsel failed to provide the required notice under section 286 before the trial, which prejudiced Prato. The court held that an attorney who has been rendered inactive and ineligible to practice law meets the definition of an attorney who has been "removed or suspended" for purposes of section 286. The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to the defendants without considering the lack of notice and the circumstances surrounding Prato's unrepresented status.The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court to reconsider the defendants' motions for attorney fees in light of section 286. View "Prato v. Gioia" on Justia Law

A general contractor, Keluco General Contractors, Inc., secured a workers’ compensation and employers’ liability policy through Travelers Property Casualty Company of America. The policy was set to last one year, expiring on March 5, 2017. After the policy expired, a Keluco employee was injured at work. Keluco attempted to make a claim on its workers’ compensation policy and discovered it had expired. Travelers claimed to have sent a notice of nonrenewal to Keluco and its insurance agent, Gretchen Santerre, but Keluco claimed it never received the notice.Keluco sued Santerre and her employer, Country Mutual Insurance Company, for failing to inform it of the nonrenewal notice. Santerre filed a third-party complaint against Travelers. The Superior Court of Alaska granted partial summary judgment against Travelers, ruling that it failed to send the nonrenewal notice in the manner required by statute, specifically by not obtaining a certificate of mailing from the United States Postal Service (USPS). The court found that Travelers breached its contract with Keluco.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. The court affirmed the Superior Court’s rulings on summary judgment, agreeing that Travelers violated AS 21.36.260 by not obtaining a certificate of mailing from USPS and thus breached its contract with Keluco. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Travelers’ contribution claim against Santerre, noting that Alaska law allows for the allocation of fault to a party who has settled out of a case.However, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s determination of when prejudgment interest began to accrue. The Supreme Court held that prejudgment interest should begin to accrue on September 20, 2017, the date the Keluco employee was injured and entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, rather than January 9, 2017. The case was remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest. View "Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Keluco General Contractors" on Justia Law

The case involves three separate lawsuits filed by individuals, organizations, and states to prevent the enforcement of President Trump's Executive Order No. 14160. This order specifies conditions under which a person born in the United States is not considered a citizen. The plaintiffs argue that the order violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause and the Nationality Act of 1940. District Courts in each case issued universal injunctions, preventing the order's enforcement against anyone, not just the plaintiffs. The Government sought to limit these injunctions to the plaintiffs, arguing that the courts lacked the authority to issue such broad relief.The District Courts concluded that the Executive Order was likely unlawful and issued universal preliminary injunctions. The Courts of Appeals denied the Government's requests to stay these injunctions. The Government then filed emergency applications with the Supreme Court, seeking partial stays to limit the injunctions to the plaintiffs.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority granted to federal courts by Congress. The Court granted the Government's applications for partial stays, limiting the injunctions to the extent necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue. The Court emphasized that federal courts' equitable authority is confined to traditional remedies available at the time of the Judiciary Act of 1789, and universal injunctions do not have a historical precedent. The Court directed the lower courts to determine whether narrower injunctions would be appropriate. View "Trump v. CASA, Inc." on Justia Law

N.S. was arrested for robbery and destruction of property and was released on his own recognizance by a Magistrate Judge. However, before he could leave the courthouse, U.S. Marshals detained him based on an ICE detainer. N.S. filed a class complaint alleging that the Marshals acted beyond their statutory authority by making a civil immigration arrest, violating the Administrative Procedure Act.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia certified the proposed class and granted N.S.'s request for a permanent injunction, prohibiting Marshal Dixon and his agents from arresting and detaining criminal defendants in the Superior Court for suspected civil immigration violations. The court held that the Marshals were not authorized to make civil immigration arrests as they had not undergone the required training. The court also found that the 2002 Order delegating authority to the Marshals lacked sufficient legal support.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Marshals were not authorized to make civil immigration arrests due to the lack of required training. However, the court found that the class-wide injunction issued by the district court was barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), which prohibits lower courts from enjoining the operation of certain immigration provisions. The court vacated the injunction and remanded the case to the district court to reconsider the appropriate remedy. View "N.S. v. Dixon" on Justia Law

James Jurgensen sustained a work injury on July 29, 2021, while employed by Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc. He hired attorney Joshua E. Borken, who agreed to a contingent fee of 20% of the first $130,000 of compensation and 20% of any excess amount, subject to approval. Minnesota Statutes § 176.081, subd. 1(a) (2022), caps attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases at $26,000. The parties settled for $150,000, and Borken sought $30,000 in fees, including $4,000 in excess fees. The compensation judge approved $26,000 but denied the excess fees after applying the Irwin factors.The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) affirmed the compensation judge’s decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the excess fees. The WCCA also concluded that automatic approval of unobjected-to excess fees is inconsistent with section 176.081, which provides a presumptive cap on attorney fees. The WCCA did not address the constitutional issue due to a lack of jurisdiction.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the 2024 amendment to Minn. Stat. § 176.081, which increases the cap on attorney fees, does not apply retroactively. The court also held that the WCCA did not err by declining to automatically approve the requested excess fee. Additionally, the court found that Minn. Stat. § 176.081, subd. 1(a) (2022), does not violate the Contracts Clause of the Minnesota Constitution. Finally, the court concluded that the WCCA did not err by affirming the compensation judge’s denial of excess attorney fees under the Irwin factors.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the WCCA, upholding the denial of the $4,000 in excess attorney fees. View "Jurgensen vs. Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc." on Justia Law

Brenda Zaragoza fell in the parking lot of a Johnson County public library, resulting in serious injuries. She sued the Johnson County Board of Commissioners, alleging negligence for failing to mitigate the presence of a storm drain and warn of the change in elevation between the curb and the parking surface. The district court granted summary judgment for the County, citing recreational use immunity under the Kansas Tort Claims Act (KTCA), which bars negligence claims arising from the use of public property intended for recreational purposes unless gross and wanton negligence is involved. The court also denied Zaragoza's motion to amend her petition to add a claim of gross and wanton negligence.The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the library's recreational use immunity applied and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Zaragoza's untimely motion to amend her petition. Zaragoza then petitioned for review, raising both issues. After the petition was granted, she filed a supplemental brief raising a new constitutional argument, which was not considered because it was not presented in her petition for review or before the lower courts.The Kansas Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions. The court declined to consider Zaragoza's unpreserved constitutional challenge. It affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, agreeing that the library's parking lot fell under the recreational use immunity provision of the KTCA. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of Zaragoza's motion to amend her petition, finding no evidence of gross and wanton negligence by the County. The court concluded that the library is public property intended for recreational purposes and that the parking lot is integral to its function, thus qualifying for immunity under the KTCA. View "Zaragoza v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs " on Justia Law

American Oversight, a nonprofit group, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in district court against the Governor and the Attorney General of Texas, alleging violations of the Public Information Act (PIA). They sought official communications and other documents, which the Governor's and Attorney General's offices partially withheld, citing various exemptions. Dissatisfied with the responses, American Oversight pursued legal action to compel the release of the information.The Travis County district court denied the State's pleas to the jurisdiction, leading to an interlocutory appeal. The State argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against constitutional executive officers, as only the Texas Supreme Court has such authority under section 22.002(c) of the Texas Government Code. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that section 552.321(b) of the PIA authorized district courts to issue mandamus relief against any governmental body, including those headed by constitutional executive officers.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and concluded that section 552.321(b) did not expand the jurisdiction of district courts to issue writs of mandamus against constitutional executive officers. The Court held that only the Texas Supreme Court has the authority to issue such writs against these officers, as per section 22.002(c) of the Texas Government Code. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and directed the district court to dismiss the mandamus petition for lack of jurisdiction. View "PAXTON v. AMERICAN OVERSIGHT" on Justia Law

Faya Rose Toure sued the City of Selma, Chief of Police Spencer Collier, and police officer Devon McGuire following her arrest for fourth-degree theft of property and attempting to elude. Toure claimed McGuire and Collier committed assault and battery, false arrest, unlawful imprisonment, invasion of privacy, negligence, wantonness, abuse of legal process, unreasonable seizure, and defamation/libel. She also accused the City of negligent hiring, training, and supervision, and fostering a custom of police abuse. Toure sought $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and $3,000,000 in punitive damages.The defendants filed for summary judgment, citing peace-officer and State-agent immunity. They provided evidence including deposition testimonies, incident reports, and body camera footage showing McGuire witnessed Toure removing a campaign sign and subsequently attempting to elude him. Toure argued she removed the sign believing it was illegally placed and felt intimidated by McGuire, who was in an unmarked vehicle. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City but denied it for McGuire and Collier.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case. It found that McGuire and Collier were performing discretionary functions within their law enforcement duties, entitling them to immunity. The court determined that McGuire had at least arguable probable cause for Toure's arrest, and Toure failed to provide substantial evidence that McGuire or Collier acted willfully, maliciously, or beyond their authority. Consequently, the court held that McGuire and Collier were entitled to peace-officer and State-agent immunity and directed the trial court to enter summary judgment in their favor. The petition for a writ of mandamus was granted, and the writ was issued. View "Ex parte McGuire" on Justia Law

Nathan Nash was involved in an automobile collision in Tuscaloosa County with a truck driven by Joshua Hunter Jones and owned by Davis Ice Cream Alabama, LLC. Nash filed a complaint in Jefferson County against Jones for negligence and wantonness, and against Davis Ice Cream for negligent training and hiring. Nash and Jones reside in counties adjacent to Jefferson County, and Davis Ice Cream's principal place of business is in Jefferson County. Nash received medical treatment and had an employer in Jefferson County.The Jefferson Circuit Court transferred the case to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court based on a motion by Davis Ice Cream, citing Alabama's forum non conveniens statute. Nash objected, highlighting his medical treatment and employer connections in Jefferson County. After the transfer order, Nash filed a motion for reconsideration and then petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and determined that the Jefferson Circuit Court exceeded its discretion in transferring the case. The Court noted that Davis Ice Cream's principal place of business and Nash's medical providers and employer were in Jefferson County, establishing a strong connection to the action. In contrast, Tuscaloosa County's only connection was the location of the collision. The Court concluded that Davis Ice Cream failed to demonstrate that Tuscaloosa County had a strong connection to the action and that Jefferson County had a weak connection. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Alabama granted Nash's petition for a writ of mandamus and directed the Jefferson Circuit Court to vacate its order transferring the case to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court. View "Ex parte Nash" on Justia Law