Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s dismissal of his amended complaint filed against Cable News Network (“CNN”) alleging defamation and false light invasion of privacy. Plaintiff challenges the district court’s finding that his amended complaint failed to cure deficiencies identified in his initial pleading. He and his counsel also appealed the court’s award of fees, expenses, and costs and the court’s inherent authority based on a finding that the amended complaint “unreasonably multiplied the proceedings.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that Plaintiff’s amended complaint failed to state a claim of either defamation or false light invasion of privacy. But the court vacated the district court’s award of sanctions, finding that the court abused its discretion in awarding them where the record does not support a finding that Plaintiff or his counsel filed the amended complaint in bad faith.   The court explained that CNN reiterated that the proceedings were multiplied by the filing of a nearly-identical Amended Complaint that did nothing to cure the deficiencies, and this bad faith conduct warranted sanctions. Thus, the district court, having received a written argument on both the procedural and substantive issues, ruled on the request without further briefing or a hearing. In light of these facts, and where there were ample opportunities to object, the court wrote it cannot conclude that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to consider the sanctions request without a formal motion. Further, the record does not support a finding that Plaintiff and his counsel undertook the effort to amend the complaint and to survive CNN’s motion to dismiss in bad faith. View "Derek Harvey v. CNN" on Justia Law

Plaintiff works as an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agent. In 2013, she reported to ICE that she was experiencing workplace harassment, and she alleged that Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) agents responded by inventing baseless criminal wage theft charges against her. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint. With respect to Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim, the district court dismissed based on its holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act’s (“FTCA”) discretionary function exception.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal—under a discretionary function immunity ruling under the FTCA. The panel held that the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim because the discretionary function exception under the FTCA did not apply to law enforcement investigations when a federal employee’s tactics during the investigation had no legitimate policy rationale.   In the FTCA, the federal government waived its sovereign immunity with respect to certain tort claims arising out of wrongdoing committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. Sovereign immunity waiver is subject to several exceptions, including the discretionary function exception, wherein the federal government has retained sovereign immunity for claims that are “based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the” federal government. The panel rejected the government’s argument that Plaintiff had not carried her burden under Twombly and Iqbal’s pleading standards, as she had failed to sufficiently allege malice or lack of probable cause on the part of DHS officials. View "KUI MYLES V. USA" on Justia Law

This appeal involved a dispute over the division of a personal injury settlement between a predecessor law firm, a successor law firm, and a client who was subjected to unfair and deceptive trade practices. Litster Frost Injury Lawyers (“Litster”) represented Melissa Gryder for approximately three years before Idaho Injury Law Group (“IILG”) took over representation and settled Gryder’s case roughly two months later for $120,000. Gryder had followed her attorney, Seth Diviney, from Litster to his newly formed firm, IILG. After the personal injury claim was settled, Litster sued IILG and Gryder, claiming a portion of the settlement for attorney’s fees and costs it incurred. Gryder, through Diviney as her attorney, counterclaimed that Litster violated the Idaho Consumer Protection Act (“ICPA”) and could not recover against the settlement fund. The district court ruled on a motion for partial summary judgment that Litster committed an unfair and deceptive trade practice in violation of the ICPA. However, by the time of the bench trial, the district court understood, based on representations by Diviney, that only Litster and IILG had a stake in the disputed portion of the fund—not Gryder. From this, the district court divided the disputed portion of the fund between Litster and IILG. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded this case for further proceedings so the district court could balance the equities between Litster, IILG, and Gryder. View "Litster Frost v. Idaho Injury Law Group" on Justia Law

After Appellant, a ticketing agent ordered a non-ticketed individual off of the bus, the two women got into a physical altercation. When DC Metropolitan Police officers arrived, they grabbed Appellant, pressed her against the wall, and then forced her to the floor. The police charged her with simple assault on the non-ticketed individual and with assaulting a police officer while resisting arrest.   Appellant sued the District of Columbia and the police officers, alleging civil rights violations during this arrest and a second arrest that occurred two months after the first. Appellant appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the District and its officers.   The DC Circuit agreed in part and reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the District and its officers on Appellant’s Section 1983 wrongful arrest, common law false arrest, and respondeat superior claims. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to Appellant’s other claims. The court explained that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether probable cause for the simple assault charge dissipated before Appellant was handcuffed a second time and taken involuntarily to the police station. Second, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of probable cause to arrest Appellant for assaulting a police officer. View "Xingru Lin v. DC (REDACTED)" on Justia Law

Carl Schwartz filed suit against King County, Washington (County) for the catastrophic injuries he suffered when he collided with a bollard the County installed on the Green River Trail. The County moved for summary judgment dismissal, arguing that Washington’s recreational use immunity statute, RCW 4.24.210, precluded liability and that the statute’s exception for known dangerous artificial latent conditions did not apply. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment for the County. The Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed summary judgment. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, finding Schwartz presented evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the bollard was a known dangerous artificial latent condition, so the trial court erred by granting summary judgment for the County. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Schwartz v. King County" on Justia Law

Two doctors missed Plaintiff’s cancer: Dr. P.J. in March 2015, and Dr. J.B in January 2018. After another doctor eventually discovered cancer, Plaintiff sued both Dr. P.J and Dr. J.B., arguing that their negligence reduced his chance of surviving. The jury returned a favorable verdict for Dr. J.B and Plaintiff moved for a mistrial based on the district court’s evidentiary rulings. The court denied that motion and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.On appeal, Plaintiff argues that the district court should have granted his motion for a new trial for three reasons. First, he says that the testimony about Dr. P.J.’s diagnosis was irrelevant and prejudicial. He next argued that the district court improperly allowed Exhibits S, T, and U to be referenced at trial. Those exhibits are hearsay, but the district court held that they fell within an exception under Federal Rule of Evidence 803. Finally, Plaintiff claimed that even if Rule 803(18) applies to Exhibits S, T, and U, those exhibits still should not have been received by the jury.The court held that the district court’s finding was not a clear abuse of discretion. While it is a close call, the record contained enough evidence for a jury to properly find that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof. The court explained that the district court, which “is in the best position to determine the impact evidence will have upon the jury,” did not abuse its discretion in finding that the jury wasn’t prejudiced by the disputed evidence. View "Steve Williams v. Jeremy Baum" on Justia Law

This is an appeal from a district court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that Defendant Biloxi H.M.A., L.L.C., doing business as Merit Health Biloxi (“Merit Health”), a hospital, has a duty to disclose that it charges a “facility fee,” also referred to as a “surcharge,” to all emergency room patients who receive care at its facility. The district court, making an Erie guess informed by the Mississippi Supreme Court’s references to, and partial application of, the Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 551, determined that Merit Health did not have a duty to disclose because the surcharge was not a “fact basic to the transaction”, and it, therefore, granted the motion to dismiss.   The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded. The court explained that in applying relevant legal precepts, the court thinks that the Mississippi Supreme Court would hold that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts that Merit Health had a duty to exercise reasonable care to disclose the surcharge. First, Plaintiff alleged that the surcharge was a material fact. Second, Plaintiff alleged that Merit Health was aware that patients like her were unaware of the surcharge, but nonetheless failed to disclose it. Third, Plaintiff alleged that she had a reasonable expectation of disclosure because Merit Health holds itself out to be a “caring community-based organization” and patients like her expected Merit Health to disclose the surcharge based on the confidence and trust that they placed in the hospital. View "Henley v. Biloxi H.M.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the appellate court reversing in part the judgment of the trial court in favor of Plaintiff in this personal injury action against a police officer and his employer, holding that Defendants were not entitled to discretionary act immunity under the circumstances of this case.Plaintiff was riding his motorcycle when Zachary Kashmanian, a police officer, began pursuing him. Kashmanian struck the back tire of Plaintiff's motorcycle, causing Plaintiff to crash and sustain serious injuries. Plaintiff asserted a common-law negligence claim against Kashmanian and the City and a common-law recklessness claim against Kashmanian. The court granted Kashmanian's motion for a directed verdict as to count two, and the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff on the negligence count. The trial court then set aside the jury's verdict in favor of Plaintiff on the negligence claim, concluding that governmental immunity was applicable to Kashmanian's conduct. The court of appeals remanded for a directed verdict in favor of Kashmanian on the recklessness count. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the appellate court's judgment insofar as that court upheld the trial court's motion to set aside the jury's verdict on the negligence complaint, holding that Kashmanian's operation of a "soft car" was a ministerial act for purposes of Defendants' governmental immunity. View "Daley v. Kashmanian" on Justia Law

Wet tile at Hibachi Buffet caused Plaintiff to slip and hit the floor hard. The jury awarded damages, but the court granted Buffet’s two posttrial motions. One was for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The other, in the alternative, was for a new trial. Identical logic propelled both motions. Buffet said no evidence showed its employees spilled liquid on its floor, so blaming them was impermissibly speculative.   The Second Appellate District reversed both orders and reinstated the jury verdict. Plaintiff offered a reasonable explanation for how the tile got wet, one consistent with the company’s admission about its use of the hallway: a Buffet employee taking dirty dishes to the kitchen spilled liquid on the way. The court held that when viewing the evidence in a light favorable to the verdict, it was legal error to reject the verdict as impermissible speculation. The jury was reasoning, not guessing.   Further, the court wrote that Buffet’s admission put its employees in the hallway where Plaintiff slipped, transporting dishes from the dining area to the kitchen. Buffet’s witness testified the dishes included cups containing the liquid customers left in them. The trial court credited Plaintiff with observing a “trail of liquid” down the hallway stretching eight to 10 feet. The video portrayed the spill’s shape. Neither Buffet nor the trial court offered another plausible explanation. Thus, the verdict enjoyed reasonable evidentiary support. View "Perez v. Hibachi Buffet" on Justia Law

Environmental groups sued ExxonMobil under the Clean Air Act for thousands of unauthorized emissions from the company’s complex in Baytown, Texas. Applying guidance from the Fifth Circuit, the district court determined that Plaintiffs proved traceability for only 3,651 of the 16,386 violation days. It ordered Exxon to pay $14.25 million dollars, lessening the penalty by more than five million dollars to reflect the reduced number of justiciable violations.   The Fifth Circuit found no error in the district court’s fact-intensive analysis of standing or penalty. The court explained that the district court properly accounted for the reduced number of violations in its final balancing of the statutory factors, reducing the penalty multiplier from 50% of the value of noncompliance to 10%. Thus, the district court’s conclusion on economic benefit stands.   Further, the court explained that in considering the length of only select few of those thousands of violations would not fully reflect the extent of Exxon’s unlawfulness. Thus, the court would not disturb the district court’s conclusion that the duration factor weighs for a penalty. The court additionally explained that there was no abuse of discretion on the seriousness factor. The district court considered each violation; it found that the traceable violations involved relatively high levels of emissions and necessarily considered the amount of each violation when it added them up to reach the 1.5-million-pound figure. Exxon does not offer any alternative definitions of “seriousness” that the district court could have applied instead. View "Env TX Citizen Lobby, et al v. ExxonMobil, et al" on Justia Law