Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

In December 2020, Robert and Kristina Shoults filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. In June 2021, they amended their schedule to claim a pre-petition, contingent, unliquidated personal injury tort claim as exempt under Missouri common law and Missouri Revised Statutes § 513.427. The Chapter 7 Trustee, Tracy A. Brown, objected to this exemption.The bankruptcy court disallowed the exemption, and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri affirmed this decision. The Debtors then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The district court and the bankruptcy court both concluded that the Eighth Circuit's decisions in In re Benn and In re Abdul-Rahim were controlling precedents, which held that Missouri debtors could only exempt property explicitly identified by Missouri statutes as exempt.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Rodriguez v. FDIC did not overrule or abrogate the Eighth Circuit's precedents in Benn and Abdul-Rahim. The court emphasized that Benn and Abdul-Rahim required a state statutory basis for bankruptcy exemptions and that Missouri Revised Statute § 513.427 did not create new exemptions but merely opted out of the federal exemption scheme. Consequently, the court concluded that the Debtors' unliquidated personal injury tort claim was not exempt under Missouri law and affirmed the district court's order denying the exemption. View "Shoults v. Brown" on Justia Law

Ka’Toria Gray filed a lawsuit against her former employer, Koch Foods of Alabama, LLC (Ala-Koch), its parent company Koch Foods, Inc., and former Ala-Koch employees Melissa McDickinson and David Birchfield, alleging harassment. The jury found in favor of Koch Foods and Ala-Koch on all claims, in favor of Birchfield and McDickinson on Gray’s claims of invasion of privacy and outrage, and in favor of Gray on her claims for assault and battery, awarding her $50,000 in total damages.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama denied all parties' motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and entered a final judgment consistent with the jury verdict. The court also awarded costs to Gray against Birchfield and McDickinson and to Koch Foods and Ala-Koch against Gray.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Birchfield and McDickinson’s renewed motion for JMOL on the assault and battery claims, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. The court also upheld the punitive damages awarded to Gray, concluding that the evidence met the clear and convincing standard required under Alabama law.The court rejected Gray’s argument for a new trial on her Title VII sexual harassment claim, noting that she waived her right to contest the verdicts as inconsistent by not objecting before the jury was discharged. The court also affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Gray’s constructive discharge claim, as the jury’s verdict on the hostile work environment claim precluded her constructive discharge claim.Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s prevailing party determinations, awarding costs to Gray against Birchfield and McDickinson and to Koch Foods and Ala-Koch against Gray. The court found no abuse of discretion in these awards. View "Gray v. Birchfield" on Justia Law

Michael Mogan, an attorney, sued Airbnb in California state court on behalf of a client in 2018. After the case went to arbitration, Mogan filed a separate lawsuit against Airbnb for abuse of process and unfair business practices, which was dismissed, and he was sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit. When Mogan refused to pay the sanctions, the California State Bar filed disciplinary charges against him. Law360, a legal news website, published three articles detailing these legal battles between 2022 and 2023.Mogan then sued Portfolio Media, the owner of Law360, for defamation and false light in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Portfolio Media filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Law360’s coverage was protected by the fair report privilege. Mogan moved to amend his complaint to include additional statements from the first article, but the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and denied leave to amend, deeming it futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the fair report privilege protected Law360’s articles. The court found that Mogan failed to demonstrate how the articles were not a fair abridgment of official proceedings. The court concluded that the statements in the articles accurately recounted judicial proceedings and thus could not support a defamation or false light claim. Consequently, Mogan’s complaint and proposed amendments were deemed futile, and the dismissal was affirmed. View "Mogan v. Portfolio Media Inc." on Justia Law

In 2015, product liability cases involving the blood-pressure medication Olmesartan were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Adam Slater and his law firm, Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, LLC, represented over 200 plaintiffs, and the case settled for over $300 million. Subsequently, Anthony Martino, a plaintiff in the MDL, filed a class action in New Jersey state court against his former lawyers, alleging they received contingent fees in violation of New Jersey court rules. The case was removed to federal court and dismissed, with the dismissal affirmed on appeal.Following this, twenty-one individuals represented by the same defendants in the MDL filed a similar action in New Jersey state court, alleging breach of contract, legal malpractice, conversion, and unjust enrichment. Defendants removed the case to the District Court, citing diversity and federal-question jurisdiction. The District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, asserting ancillary enforcement jurisdiction, and granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, applying issue preclusion. The court also dismissed the parties' motions for sanctions as moot.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that ancillary enforcement jurisdiction does not confer original jurisdiction sufficient for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The court also found that the plaintiffs' state-law claims did not necessarily raise a federal issue to establish federal-question jurisdiction. The court vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case to determine if the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction. Additionally, the court vacated the order dismissing the motions for sanctions as moot, instructing the District Court to consider the merits of each motion. View "Johnson v. Mazie" on Justia Law

In April 2017, Mark Mehner was injured when a chair he was sitting on at a Panera café in Omaha collapsed. Mehner sued Panera and the chair manufacturer, Furniture Design Studios (FDS), for negligence, spoliation, and strict liability. He claimed permanent injuries, including spinal fractures. Panera's general manager filled out an incident report but discarded the broken chair and the handwritten report. Mehner alleged that he had requested the preservation of the chair and surveillance video, which Panera denied.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted summary judgment to both FDS and Panera. The court found that Mehner failed to provide evidence of a specific defect in the chair or causation, particularly since the chair had been out of FDS's possession for nearly eight years. The court also denied Mehner's motion for spoliation sanctions, finding no intentional destruction of evidence by Panera. Additionally, the court rejected Mehner's motion for relief from judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of FDS, agreeing that Mehner did not present sufficient evidence of a defect or causation. The court also upheld the summary judgment for Panera, determining that Mehner failed to establish that Panera created or had notice of the chair's condition. The court rejected Mehner's res ipsa loquitur argument, noting that he did not show the chair was under Panera's exclusive control or that the incident would not have occurred without negligence.The Eighth Circuit also affirmed the district court's discovery rulings, including the denial of Mehner's motion to defer, the denial of his motion to extend progression, and the issuance of a protective order to Panera. The court found no abuse of discretion in these rulings. Finally, the court upheld the denial of spoliation sanctions and the denial of Mehner's motion to revise, alter, or amend the judgment. View "Mehner v. Furniture Design Studios, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2010, the British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon oil spill released crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Matthew Williams, the plaintiff, performed oil spill clean-up work in the Gulf that summer. On September 24, 2020, Williams was diagnosed with chronic pansinusitis, an inflammatory condition of the nasal passages. Williams filed a lawsuit against BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Co., alleging that his condition was caused by exposure to oil, dispersants, and other chemicals during the cleanup work. Williams presented two expert witnesses, Dr. Michael Freeman and Dr. James Clark, to establish causation.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi reviewed the case. BP filed motions to exclude the expert reports under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, and subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Williams lacked admissible expert testimony to establish causation. The district court granted BP’s motions to exclude the expert testimonies and the motion for summary judgment, leading Williams to appeal the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the district court’s exclusion of Dr. Freeman’s testimony, finding it unreliable as it did not properly apply the differential etiology approach. Similarly, the court found Dr. Clark’s testimony unreliable due to errors in his report, including references to another case and incorrect assumptions about benzene concentrations. Without admissible expert testimony, Williams could not establish specific causation, a necessary element in toxic tort cases. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of BP. View "Williams v. BP Expl & Prod" on Justia Law

Anthony Mitchell was driving his Ferrari in Dana Point when he ran over large rocks that had rolled onto the road from an adjacent slope, causing damage to his car and unspecified personal injuries. Mitchell and his passenger, Scott Sieverts, sued multiple parties, including Gail B. Hutchinson, trustee of the Hutchinson Family Trust, for negligence and premises liability, alleging that the defendants failed to maintain their properties to prevent rocks from becoming hazards.The Superior Court of Orange County granted summary judgment in favor of Hutchinson, concluding that she met her initial burden of showing that the plaintiffs could not prove causation. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to create a triable issue of material fact regarding whether the rocks came from Hutchinson’s property or whether the defendants negligently maintained their slopes. The plaintiffs appealed the decision.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that Hutchinson met her initial burden under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (p)(2), by showing that the plaintiffs could not prove causation. The burden then shifted to the plaintiffs, who failed to show a triable issue of material fact. The court found that the plaintiffs' expert's opinion was speculative and lacked foundation, and there was no admissible evidence tying the rocks to Hutchinson’s property or proving negligence. Consequently, the summary judgment in favor of Hutchinson was affirmed. View "Mitchell v. Hutchinson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs in this multi-district products liability suit allege that they purchased defective Chrysler Pacifica minivans from FCA, which were recalled due to a risk of battery explosions. After the recall, plaintiffs filed seven putative class action suits, which were consolidated in the Eastern District of Michigan. During discovery, FCA discovered that some plaintiffs had agreed to arbitration clauses when purchasing their minivans and moved to compel arbitration for those plaintiffs. The district court denied FCA’s motion, finding that FCA had waived its right to arbitrate by moving to dismiss the entire complaint.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied FCA’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding that FCA had waived its right to arbitrate by engaging in litigation conduct inconsistent with that right, specifically by moving to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The district court made this finding sua sponte, without the plaintiffs raising the issue of waiver.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that a party cannot waive its right to arbitration without knowledge of that right. The court found that FCA did not know about the arbitration clauses until it obtained the relevant purchase agreements through discovery. Additionally, the appellate court determined that the district court erred by raising the issue of waiver on its own, violating the principle of party presentation. The Sixth Circuit concluded that the district court’s decision was clearly erroneous and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Berzanskis v. FCA US, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves nearly 75,000 plaintiffs who filed personal injury claims in the Delaware Superior Court, alleging that their ingestion of ranitidine, marketed under the brand name Zantac, caused them to develop various types of cancer. The plaintiffs claim that ranitidine contains or degrades into N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a likely carcinogen. The defendants in the case include GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi US Services Inc., Pfizer Inc., and Patheon Manufacturing Services, LLC.The Superior Court of Delaware denied the defendants' motions to exclude the plaintiffs' expert testimony, which supported the claim that ranitidine causes cancer. The court concluded that the general causation question could focus on NDMA rather than ranitidine itself and that Delaware law does not require a "threshold dose" for general causation. The court also applied a "liberal thrust" favoring the admissibility of expert testimony, viewing challenges to the experts' methodologies as questions for the jury.The Supreme Court of Delaware reviewed the case and reversed the Superior Court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the Superior Court erred in interpreting Delaware Rule of Evidence 702 by applying a "liberal thrust" favoring admissibility and by concluding that Delaware's standard for admissibility is distinct from the federal standard. The Supreme Court emphasized that the proponent of expert testimony must establish its admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence, and the trial court must act as a gatekeeper to ensure the reliability and sufficiency of the expert's methodology and application.The Supreme Court also found that the Superior Court erred in defining the general causation question as focusing on NDMA rather than the product at issue, ranitidine. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' experts did not reliably link the NDMA studies to the exposure caused by ranitidine, failing to establish the necessary scientific connection between the product and the alleged harm. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Litigation" on Justia Law

A widow, Lori Olson, individually and as the personal representative of her deceased husband Scott Olson's estate, filed a lawsuit against Huron Regional Medical Center (HRMC), Dr. William Miner, and Thomas Miner, a physician’s assistant, alleging negligence, wrongful death, loss of consortium, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and fraudulent concealment. Scott Olson died at HRMC in January 2020 under the care of Dr. Miner and Thomas Miner. Lori Olson initiated the lawsuit in September 2021.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Beadle County, South Dakota, denied Dr. Miner’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process but later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute. Lori Olson appealed the dismissal, and Dr. Miner filed a notice of review challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss for insufficient service.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case and found that there was verifiable record activity within the year prior to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, including efforts to compile medical records and communication between the parties. The court concluded that the Circuit Court erred in dismissing the case under SDCL 15-11-11 for lack of prosecution, as there was sufficient activity to move the case forward. Additionally, the court found that the delays in the case did not rise to the level of egregiousness required for dismissal under Rule 41(b) and that the Circuit Court did not consider less severe sanctions before dismissing the case.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed the Circuit Court’s decision to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute and affirmed the denial of Dr. Miner’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process, concluding that Dr. Miner was properly served. View "Olson v. Huron Regional Medical Center, Inc." on Justia Law