Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A class of stock purchasers alleged that Anadarko Petroleum Corporation fraudulently misrepresented the potential value of its Shenandoah oil field project in the Gulf of Mexico, violating federal securities law. The plaintiffs claimed that a decline in Anadarko’s stock price resulted from the company's disclosure that the Shenandoah project was dry and that Anadarko was taking a significant write-off for the project. The plaintiffs invoked the Basic presumption, a legal principle that allows courts to presume an investor's reliance on any public material misrepresentations if certain requirements are met.The District Court for the Southern District of Texas certified the class, relying on new evidence presented by the plaintiffs in their reply brief. Anadarko argued that it was not given a fair opportunity to respond to this new evidence and appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with Anadarko, stating that the district court should have allowed a sur-reply when the plaintiffs presented new evidence in their reply brief. The court held that when a party raises new arguments or evidence for the first time in a reply, the district court must either give the other party an opportunity to respond or decline to rely on the new arguments and evidence. The court also agreed that the district court failed to perform a full Daubert analysis, a standard for admitting expert scientific testimony. The court vacated the class certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Georgia Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp." on Justia Law

The case involves three plaintiffs, Xingjian Sun, Xing Zhao, and Ao Wang, who sued their professor, Gary Gang Xu, for various allegations. Sun and Zhao, former students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, accused Xu of sexual and emotional abuse. Wang, a professor at Wesleyan University, posted online that Xu had a history of sexually assaulting students. In response, Xu allegedly posted negative comments about Wang and sent a letter to his employer. Xu counterclaimed, asserting a defamation claim against Sun and claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress against all three plaintiffs.The case was tried in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, where a jury found in favor of Xu on all issues and awarded him damages against Sun and Wang. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying their motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding Xu’s intentional infliction of emotional distress counterclaims. They also contended that the district court erred in denying their motion for a new trial, based on the court’s decision to admit evidence that Sun had a relationship with another professor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment in favor of Xu on his counterclaim against Wang, finding that no reasonable jury could find Wang's conduct extreme and outrageous under Illinois law. However, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of Xu on his counterclaim against Sun, concluding that a reasonable jury could find that Sun's conduct met the requirements for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. View "Sun v. Xu" on Justia Law

The case involves Dr. R. Michael Williams, a board-certified oncologist, who had privileges at Doctor’s Medical Center of Modesto (DMCM) since 2003. Williams alleged that around 2018, his professional relationship with DMCM and other respondents deteriorated. He claimed that respondents treated him with hostility and unprofessionalism, and began investigating him. Williams filed two lawsuits against respondents based on their treatment of him. The first lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by Williams after respondents filed anti-SLAPP motions. The second lawsuit, which is the subject of this appeal, was dismissed by the trial court after granting respondents' anti-SLAPP motions. Williams appealed both the granting of the anti-SLAPP motions and the award of attorney fees to respondents.The Superior Court of Stanislaus County had granted two separate anti-SLAPP motions filed by the respondents and awarded them attorney fees. Williams appealed these decisions, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that his claims arose from protected activity and that he failed to establish a probability of prevailing on his claims. He also contended that the award of attorney fees must be reversed because he had established that the court erred in granting the anti-SLAPP motions.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District reversed both the granting of the anti-SLAPP motions and the award of attorney fees. The court found that the trial court had erroneously relied on issue preclusion to find that respondents had met their burden under the first SLAPP question. The court concluded that the respondents did not meet their burden of showing that any cause of action or claim in the FAC arose from SLAPP protected activity. Therefore, the SLAPP order must be reversed, and it was unnecessary for the court to address whether Williams met his burden under the second step. View "Williams v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto" on Justia Law

The case involves T & C Construction Services and Theodore Miller (collectively, T & C), who operate a rental building in St. Albans, West Virginia. The City of St. Albans inspected the premises after a tenant reported a fire, revealing numerous fire hazards and building code violations. The City issued two citations for these violations, and the St. Albans Municipal Court fined T & C $81,250.00 for the fire code violations and $116,900.00 for the building code violations. After T & C failed to appeal these orders, the City sought enforcement in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County issued a cease-and-desist order that enjoined T & C from operating its rental business on the premises, granted the City a money judgment for the criminal fines, and appointed a special commissioner to sell the property to satisfy the judgment. T & C appealed this enforcement order to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the lower court's decision to grant injunctive relief, rejecting T & C’s challenges to the injunctive relief. The court found that the lower court had jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief and did not abuse its discretion in doing so. However, the court reversed the lower court's appointment of a special commissioner to sell the property. The court held that the issuance and return of a writ of fieri facias showing “no property found” is a precondition to a circuit court’s jurisdiction to order the sale of a debtor’s property to satisfy a judgment for a criminal fine. The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "T & C Construction Services, LLC v. City of St. Albans" on Justia Law

The case involves plaintiffs Pamela Antosh and Ned Lashley, who challenged the Village of Mount Pleasant's use of its eminent-domain power to acquire their property for road improvements associated with the private Foxconn development. In state court, the plaintiffs contested only the amount of compensation they were owed, not the propriety of the taking. However, when the state court ruled against them on an evidentiary issue two years into litigation, they decided to try their luck in federal court. In their federal complaint, they alleged for the first time that the taking was improper because it served a private purpose, not a public one.The state court proceedings were stayed pending the resolution of the federal suit. The Village filed a motion to dismiss the federal complaint, arguing that the federal court should abstain from exercising its jurisdiction over the proceeding. The district court agreed, dismissing the federal claims without prejudice, citing Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). The plaintiffs appealed this judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the district court was correct to refrain from exercising jurisdiction over the federal claims. The court concluded that the federal and state actions were parallel and that exceptional circumstances justified the district court's decision to abstain. The court noted that the plaintiffs' litigation strategy signaled a lack of respect for the state's ability to resolve the issues properly before its courts. The court also found that the plaintiffs' federal suit was a strategic attempt to bypass an unfavorable state-court ruling two years into that litigation. View "Antosh v. Village of Mount Pleasant" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an adjunct professor at New York University (NYU), experienced offensive and demeaning conduct from her colleagues, including unsolicited offensive mail and online impersonation. She reported these incidents to NYU, which conducted investigations and took measures to limit the impact on her. However, dissatisfied with NYU's response, she filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against NYU and certain administrators, as well as the individuals she claimed were responsible for the conduct against her. The lawsuit alleged discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.The federal court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that NYU responded negligently or that her termination was a pretext for discrimination. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims under the New York State Human Rights Law (State HRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (City HRL), dismissing those claims without prejudice. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her hostile work environment and retaliation claims, and the Second Circuit affirmed.While her appeal was pending, the plaintiff filed a nearly identical suit in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, alleging violations of the State and City HRLs, renewing her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, adding another NYU administrator as a defendant, and asserting a new protected category of disability. The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint as barred by collateral estoppel and for failing to state a claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, and the plaintiff appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that the plaintiff's claims were barred by collateral estoppel based on the findings of the federal district court. The court also held that the individual defendants, who were the plaintiff's co-workers rather than her supervisors, could not be held liable under the City HRL. The court noted that while the City HRL provides for individual liability, it does so only for those who have a role in administering the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of the plaintiff's employment. View "Russell v New York Univ." on Justia Law

The case involves Jane Doe, who sued the Franklin Square Union Free School District on behalf of herself and her minor daughter, Sarah Doe. The lawsuit was filed after the school district refused to grant Sarah an exemption from a school mask mandate implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Jane Doe argued that the school district violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and her claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed Jane Doe's constitutional claim, concluding that the school district's conduct survived rational basis review. The court also dismissed her federal statutory claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that the school district did not violate Jane Doe or Sarah’s constitutional rights by denying their request for an accommodation. However, the court agreed with Jane Doe that she was not required to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of the IDEA and held that the district court erred in dismissing Jane Doe’s ADA and § 504 claims. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Doe v. Franklin Square Union Free Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Beverly Ferraro, slipped and fell at a Burger King restaurant in Butler County, Pennsylvania, and filed a negligence lawsuit against the restaurant's operators. Ferraro filed her complaint within the two-year statute of limitations for negligence actions. However, she encountered difficulties in serving the complaint to the defendants, Patterson-Erie Corporation D/B/A Burger King and Burger King Corporation, due to issues with the Sheriff's service and the COVID-19 pandemic. Ferraro eventually served the complaint through a private process server and later reinstated the complaint and served it through the Sheriff, but this occurred after the original statute of limitations period had elapsed.The defendants argued that the action was barred by the statute of limitations because Ferraro did not make a good faith effort to serve them in a timely manner. The trial court denied the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the Superior Court affirmed this decision. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, arguing that the lower courts' conclusions conflicted with previous court rulings on the issue of timely service of process.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the order of the Superior Court. The court held that Ferraro failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that she made a good faith effort in diligently and timely serving process on the defendants. Therefore, the defendants' informal receipt of actual notice was irrelevant. The court emphasized that plaintiffs cannot opt out of the rules to give notice of the commencement of a lawsuit by informal means. If attempts at service of process are optional for giving such notice, then no plaintiff would be required to rely on the service of process rules to impart notice. View "Ferraro v. Patterson-Erie" on Justia Law

The case involves Earl John and Christine Dwyer, who sued Ameriprise Financial, Inc. for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation. In 1985, Ameriprise fraudulently and negligently induced the Dwyers to purchase a universal whole life insurance policy by misrepresenting that their quarterly premium payments would remain the same for the life of the policy. The Dwyers surrendered life insurance policies they had purchased from other companies to facilitate this purchase. In reality, if the Dwyers’ premium payment had remained the same, the policy would have lapsed for insufficient funds in 2020.The trial court found Ameriprise guilty of violating Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (CPL) and awarded the Dwyers compensatory damages. However, the court declined to award treble damages under the CPL, reasoning that they would be duplicative of the punitive damages awarded by the jury on the common-law claims. The Superior Court affirmed this decision.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania disagreed with the lower courts' decisions. The court held that treble damages under the CPL are a separate remedy available to the Dwyers and must be considered by the trial court without regard to a punitive damages award on related common-law claims. The court concluded that nullifying the availability of a statutory award because of a common-law award is not a permissible exercise of discretion. Therefore, the court reversed the order of the Superior Court and remanded the case for reconsideration of damages under the CPL. View "Dwyer v. Ameriprise Financial" on Justia Law

Nicholas and Julie Kuhar filed a product liability claim against Thompson Manufacturing, a Utah company, seeking compensation for injuries Nicholas sustained when his safety harness failed while he was cleaning rain gutters in New Jersey. This was not the first lawsuit the Kuhars had brought regarding this incident. They had previously sued Thompson and other defendants in New Jersey federal court, alleging that the harness was defective. That suit was unsuccessful, with Thompson being dismissed from the case due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. The Kuhars then refiled their claims against Thompson in Utah.In the New Jersey case, the Kuhars' expert witness was excluded, and the remaining defendants were granted summary judgment. Thompson then moved in the Utah case to preclude the Kuhars from litigating the issue of whether the harness was defective. The district court agreed with Thompson and dismissed the Kuhars' claims. However, the Utah Court of Appeals reversed this decision, concluding that the issue litigated and decided in New Jersey was not identical to the issue Thompson sought to preclude in Utah.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah, however, disagreed with the Court of Appeals. It concluded that the elements of issue preclusion were satisfied. The court clarified that to determine the issue-preclusive effect of the New Jersey federal court’s judgment in this case, the substantive law of New Jersey applies. Under that law, the court concluded that the issue Thompson sought to preclude the Kuhars from litigating—whether the harness was defective—was actually litigated and decided on the merits in the New Jersey court’s summary judgment order. Therefore, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "Kuhar v. Thompson Manufacturing" on Justia Law