International Criminal Court Lacks Authority to Proceed Against Israel

SAMUEL ESTREICHER, GEORGE BOGDEN

NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher and JD candidate George Bogden, PhD, comment on a recent filing by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) asking the court to exercise jurisdiction and grant permission to pursue an investigation of alleged war crimes in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Estreicher and Bogden argue that because Israel is not a state party to the action and Palestine is not a state recognized by international law, the ICC lacks territorial jurisdiction under the Rome Statute.

Read More

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 19-1644

Opinion Date: March 6, 2020

Judge: Floyd

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Energy, Oil & Gas Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's remand order and held that the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, does not provide a proper basis for removal in a climate-change lawsuit against oil and gas companies. The court first held that Noel v. McCain, 538 F.2d 633 (4th Cir. 1976), remains binding precedent in this circuit and dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, insofar as it seeks to challenge the district court's determination with respect to the propriety of removal based on federal-question, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, admiralty, and bankruptcy jurisdiction. Although the court had jurisdiction to review the federal officer removal statute claim, the court agreed with Baltimore that none of the three contractual relationships defendants pointed to were sufficient to justify removal under the federal officer removal statute in this case, either because they failed to satisfy the acting-under prong or because they were insufficiently related to Baltimore's claims for purposes of the nexus prong.

SAS Institute, Inc. v. World Programming Ltd.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Dockets: 19-1290, 19-1300

Opinion Date: March 12, 2020

Judge: James Harvie Wilkinson, III

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, International Law

This case stemmed from litigation between SAS and WPL, software developers that compete in the market for statistical analysis software. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of an expansion injunction and an anti-clawback injunction issued pursuant to its All Writs Act authority. Although the court respected the judicial system and judges of the United Kingdom, the court explained that the district court here needed to ensure that a money judgment reached in an American court under American law—based on damages incurred in America—was not rendered meaningless. In this case, the district court chose to enforce its judgment in the most measured terms, concentrating on the litigants' U.S. conduct and collection efforts. The court wrote that failing to take even these modest steps would have encouraged any foreign company and country to undermine the finality of a U.S. judgment.

Anderson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 18-60546

Opinion Date: March 12, 2020

Judge: Stuart Kyle Duncan

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

Plaintiff alleged that her mortgage lender improperly enforced an adjustable-rate rider and that an assignment of her mortgage was invalid. After the parties executed a settlement agreement disposing of the first lawsuit, the second and third lawsuits were dismissed on res judicata grounds. Plaintiff added new claims in her fourth and fifth lawsuits. In this appeal, plaintiff seeks to revive the claims from her fifth lawsuit. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint based on res judicata grounds. In this case, all of plaintiff's previous actions resulted in a final merits judgment from courts of competent jurisdiction and all four identities were met under Mississippi law. The court also held that plaintiff's appeal was frivolous and ordered her to show cause within fourteen days as to why she should not be sanctioned.

Dolin v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 19-2547

Opinion Date: March 6, 2020

Judge: HAMILTON

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Drugs & Biotech, Government & Administrative Law, Health Law

Dolin was prescribed Paxil, the brand-name version of the drug paroxetine, to treat his depression. The prescription was filled with a generic paroxetine product. Six days later, Dolin died by suicide. Federal law preempted an "inadequate labeling" state-law claim against the generic manufacturer. Mrs. Dolin sued GSK, the manufacturer of brand-name Paxil, arguing that GSK was responsible for the labeling for all paroxetine, no matter who made and sold it, and had negligently omitted an adult suicide risk. The Seventh Circuit reversed her jury verdict, based on preemption, citing the complex regulation of drug labels and of Paxil/paroxetine’s label in particular. GSK had attempted to change the Paxil label in 2007 to add an adult suicide warning. The FDA rejected that change. The court concluded that GSK lacked new information after 2007 that would have allowed it to add an adult-suicidality warning under the existing regulations. Eight days after denying Dolin certiorari, the Supreme Court decided another case, further explaining the “clear evidence” standard for impossibility preemption for prescription drug labels. Dolin filed an unsuccessful motion under FRCP 60(b)(6), arguing that the 2018 judgment should be set aside based on a change in law so that GSK could not establish its defense of impossibility preemption. The Seventh Circuit affirmed and did not impose sanctions. The Supreme Court provided important guidance but did not break new ground that would change the result in Dolin’s case. Her motion was not frivolous.

Mussat v. IQVIA, Inc.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 19-1204

Opinion Date: March 11, 2020

Judge: Diane Pamela Wood

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Class Action

Mussat, an Illinois professional services corporation, received unsolicited faxes from IQVIA, a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Pennsylvania. These faxes failed to include the required opt-out notice. Mussat brought a putative class action in Illinois under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, on behalf of itself and all persons in the country who had received similar junk faxes from IQVIA in the four previous years. The district court granted IQVIA's motion to strike the class definition, reasoning that under the Supreme Court’s 2017 “Bristol-Myers” holding, not just the named plaintiff, but also the unnamed class members, each had to show minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum state. Because IQVIA is not subject to general jurisdiction in Illinois, the court turned to specific jurisdiction and found that it had no jurisdiction over the claims of parties who were harmed outside of Illinois. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that Bristol-Myers does not apply to the case of a nationwide class action filed in federal court under a federal statute. Bristol-Myers did not reach the question of whether, in a Rule 23 class action, each unnamed class member must separately establish specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant. In such an action the lead plaintiffs earn the right to represent the interests of absent class members by satisfying Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b) criteria. Absent class members are not full parties to the case for many purposes.

Pederson v. Frost

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 18-3195

Opinion Date: March 10, 2020

Judge: Stras

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

Plaintiff filed suit against several out-of-state defendants in Minnesota state court, alleging that defendants participated in a fraudulent scheme. After defendants removed to federal district court, the case was dismissed based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that plaintiff was the only connection between Minnesota and the underlying dispute. In this case, requiring defendants to litigate this action in Minnesota would offend due process because defendants' contacts were insufficient to confer specific jurisdiction.

Barranco v. 3D Systems Corp.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 18-16708

Opinion Date: March 12, 2020

Judge: Milan D. Smith

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Contracts

Plaintiff filed suit against 3D Systems for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, among other claims. Plaintiff's claims arose out of a purchase and sale agreement (PSA) documenting 3D Systems' acquisition of 3D printing websites from plaintiff. 3D Systems counterclaimed that plaintiff breached a covenant not to compete (CNTC) contained in the PSA. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's evidentiary rulings regarding the exclusion of a prior arbitration award. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of whether 3D Systems promised to invest substantial resources in the Domains. The panel also held that the district court exercised equitable jurisdiction to award 3D Systems restitution in the form of monetary relief. However, the district court erred in concluding that 3D Systems had a right to an equitable accounting and by relying solely on the text of the parties' contract to grant equitable relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part.

Strauss v. Angie's List

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 19-3025

Opinion Date: March 9, 2020

Judge: Michael R. Murphy

Areas of Law: Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Business Law, Civil Procedure

Plaintiff, Steve Strauss, brought claims against Defendant, Angie’s List, Inc., alleging violations of the Lanham Act. Strauss owned a tree trimming/removal business called Classic Tree Care (“Classic”). Defendant Angie’s List was an internet-based consumer ratings forum on which fee-paying members could view and share reviews of local businesses. According to Strauss, the membership agreement between Angie’s List and its members lead members to believe that businesses were ranked by Angie’s List according to unedited consumer commentaries and endorsements when, in reality, the order in which businesses were ranked was actually based on the amount of advertising the business bought from Angie’s List. He alleged businesses were told they will be ranked more favorably on the website if they paid advertising and referral fees to Angie’s List. According to Strauss, from 2005 to 2016 he paid $200,000 in advertising services fees and coupon retention percentages to Angie’s List “in an effort to appear higher” in search results. The business relationship between Strauss and Angie’s List, however, began to sour in 2013. Strauss alleged he failed to appear in search results for a three-month period and then was “buried” in search-result listings even though he had numerous favorable reviews and a high rating from consumers. In September 2017, Strauss filed a putative class action lawsuit against Angie’s List, raising allegations that Angie’s List engaged in false advertising in violation of section 45(a) of the Lanham Act, as well as the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA). Strauss appealed when the district court dismissed his complaint on the basis that it failed to identify any statements made by Angie’s List that qualified as commercial advertising or promotion within the meaning of the Lanham Act’s false advertising provision. Strauss contended the district court erred by analyzing his claims under the test adopted by the Tenth Circuit in Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 222 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2000) (adopting a four-part test for determining what constitutes commercial advertising or promotion). Finding no reversible error, however, the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Strauss’ case.

K.G. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Docket: 19-1690

Opinion Date: March 6, 2020

Judge: O'Malley

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Health Law, Public Benefits

In 2011, K.G., age 48, received an influenza vaccination in advance of knee replacement surgery. Over the next several months, she experienced increasingly severe nerve pain in her hands, arms, feet, and legs; she succumbed to alcoholism, spent months in the hospital, and developed amnesia. In 2014, an Iowa state court declared K.G. incapable of caring for herself and, against K.G.’s will, appointed K.G.’s sister as her guardian. K.G. regained her mental faculties by May 2016. She then retained an attorney who filed her claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-1. A Special Master held that equitable tolling was not available during the period that K.G.’s sister acted as K.G.’s guardian and dismissed K.G.’s claim as not timely filed within the three-year statute of limitations. The Federal Circuit vacated. Equitable tolling is available in Vaccine Act cases and the appointment of a legal guardian is only one factor a court should consider when deciding whether equitable tolling is appropriate in a particular case. K.G. was not required to argue the legally irrelevant question of whether she personally was diligent while she was mentally competent and she preserved her argument that her legal representative exercised reasonable diligence under the circumstances. The Special Master erred in adopting a per se rule.

Ex parte City of Millbrook.

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

Docket: 1180050

Opinion Date: March 6, 2020

Judge: Mitchell

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury, Real Estate & Property Law

Josie Wright was injured when she fell in front of the Millbrook Civic Center. She and her husband James sued the City of Millbrook based on her injuries. The City's liability turned on a question of statutory interpretation. The City asked the Alabama Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the Elmore Circuit Court to grant the City's motion for a summary judgment on the basis of Article 2 of the recreational-use statutes, sections 35-15- 20 through -28, Ala. Code 1975. That article immunized landowners from liability for accidents that occur on "outdoor recreational land." Because the City did not show the civic center was included within the definition of "outdoor recreational land" in Article 2, the Court denied the petition.

Foster v. Foster

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

Docket: 1180648

Opinion Date: March 6, 2020

Judge: Sellers

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Trusts & Estates

Gary D. Foster and Stephen Foster were brothers who had a disagreement over the management of the "Foster Family 1989 Trust" ("the Trust"). Gary filed a "complaint" seeking an accounting and an inventory of the Trust and, subsequently, seeking to remove Stephen as the trustee of the Trust. The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Gary and assessed damages. Stephen appealed. Finding no reversible error in the trial court’s decision, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed.

Coats v. New Haven Unified School District

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: A150490(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 12, 2020

Judge: J. Anthony Kline

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law, Juvenile Law, Personal Injury

When E.D. was 17 years old, a high school teacher began engaging in sex with her in his classroom. The situation was discovered after several months. The teacher admitted engaging in sexual intercourse with E.D. 10-20 times while she was a minor. The principal had previously disciplined the teacher for inappropriate contact with a student but the conduct had not been reported to authorities; no steps were taken to monitor the teacher’s contact with other female students. E.D. brought claims against the teacher for sexual abuse, against the school defendants for negligence and breach of statutory duties in failing to adequately supervise teachers and protect students, and against all the defendants for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; her foster mother joined in the claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. They alleged that they were not required to present a claim to the School District under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code 810) due to the exemption for claims of sexual abuse of a minor, section 905(m). The District had enacted its own claim presentation requirement, purportedly overriding section 905(m) The court of appeal reversed the dismissal of E.D.’s causes of action. The Legislature has consistently expanded the ability of childhood sexual abuse victims to seek compensation but it is not clear that it intended to provide relatives the same rights as direct victims.

County of Humboldt v. Appellate Division of the Superior Court of Humboldt County

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: A157609(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 11, 2020

Judge: Sanchez

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law

Government Code section 53069.4 authorizes local governments to assess administrative fines or penalties for ordinance violations. Judicial review of a final administrative decision may be obtained either by petition for writ of mandate or by a limited de novo appeal to the superior court. Humboldt County brought an enforcement action against Quezada for conditions on his property which were deemed public nuisances in violation of county ordinance. Quezada sought review of the adverse agency determination through a de novo appeal to the superior court, which reduced his penalty from $88,800 to $59,200. Although the amount in controversy exceeded the $25,000 threshold for a limited civil case, the County appealed to the appellate division of the superior court based on section 53069.4(b)(1), which provides that “a proceeding under this subdivision is a limited civil case.” The appellate division dismissed, concluding that no right to appeal exists in a code enforcement proceeding beyond section 53069.4(b) and that a superior court order after a de novo appeal under section 53069.4 is final and nonreviewable. The court of appeal directed that the appellate division vacate its order. In an unlimited civil action such as this, a final judgment from a de novo appeal to the superior court under section 53069.4 is reviewable on appeal to an intermediate appellate court, Code Civil Procedure 904.1(a)(1).

Montoya v. Ford Motor Co.

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: G056752(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 12, 2020

Judge: William W. Bedsworth

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Class Action, Products Liability

Gabriel Montoya bought a 2003 Ford Excursion in April 2003. A jury found that as of November 30, 2005, he knew it was a lemon. The statute of limitations for breaches of the implied warranty of merchantability was four years. Montoya didn’t sue Ford for another seven-and-one-half years, waiting until June 2013. Yet he was able to obtain a judgment against Ford of almost $59,000 for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. This was roughly an $8,000 return over what he had originally paid for the vehicle 10 years earlier. This was possible because there were two periods during which the statute of limitations was tolled while separate national class actions were pending against Ford, both of which were applied to Montoya’s case. The Court of Appeal determined a second class action filed in this case did not toll Montoya's claim. "The four-year statute of limitations therefore expired no later than 2010. He sued in 2013. His claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability was therefore untimely presented."

Trustees of Estate of Bernice Pauahi Bishop v. Au

Court: Supreme Court of Hawaii

Docket: SCWC-16-0000235

Opinion Date: March 10, 2020

Judge: Richard W. Pollack

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) and the order of the circuit court determining that Appellant qualified as a "plaintiff" for the purpose of the vexatious litigant statute, Haw. Rev. Stat. 634J, and that the required circumstances were met, holding that the lower courts erred in determining that Appellant qualified as a "plaintiff" and that other requirements set forth in the statute were satisfied. Appellee filed a motion to declare Appellant a vexatious litigant under section 634J-1(2) and (3) based on Appellant's repeated assertion of arguments that Appellee contended were already resolved. The circuit court granted the motion, concluding that Appellant met the definition of "plaintiff" because he had, through seven motions, sought to relitigate the merits of a summary judgment order and thereby "maintained" the litigation and that Appellant met the definition of a vexatious litigant. The ICA affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Appellant did not meet the definition of "plaintiff" under section 634J-1 or 634J-1(2); (2) a finding of bad faith is required in order to conclude a litigant is vexatious under section 634J-1(2) or (3); and (3) the record did not support a finding of bad faith in this case.

DEQ v. Gibson

Court: Idaho Supreme Court - Civil

Docket: 46217

Opinion Date: March 11, 2020

Judge: Roger S. Burdick

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law

The Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) brought a civil enforcement action under the Environmental Protection and Health Act against David Gibson and VHS Properties, LLC, (“VHS”), for illegally operating a composting facility. After a three-day bench trial, the district court determined that Gibson was operating a “Tier II Solid Waste Processing Facility” without prior approval from DEQ. The district court assessed a civil penalty and issued an injunction. On appeal, Gibson raised a number of issues regarding DEQ’s authority to regulate compost and its inspection of the property. DEQ argued Gibson’s appeal was partially time-barred. After review, the Idaho Supreme Court held that although Gibson’s appeal was not time-barred, he failed to show error. Therefore, it affirmed the district court.

Good v. Harry's Dairy

Court: Idaho Supreme Court - Civil

Docket: 46350

Opinion Date: March 9, 2020

Judge: Brody

Areas of Law: Agriculture Law, Business Law, Civil Procedure, Contracts

Jeff Good and Harry’s Dairy entered into a contract providing that Harry’s Dairy would purchase 3,000 tons of Good’s hay. Harry’s Dairy paid for and hauled approximately 1,000 tons of hay over a period of approximately eight weeks, but did not always pay for the hay before hauling it and at one point went several weeks without hauling hay. After Harry’s Dairy went a month without hauling additional hay, Good demanded that Harry’s Dairy begin paying for and hauling the remaining hay. Harry’s Dairy responded that it had encountered mold in some of the hay, but would be willing to pay for and haul non-moldy hay at the contract price. Good then sold the remaining hay for a substantially lower price than he would have received under the contract, and filed a complaint against Harry’s Dairy alleging breach of contract. Harry’s Dairy counterclaimed for violation of implied and express warranties and breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Good on all claims, and a jury ultimately awarded Good $144,000 in damages. Harry’s Dairy appealed, arguing that there were several genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment, that the jury verdict was not supported by substantial and competent evidence, and that the district court erred in awarding attorney fees, costs, and prejudgment interest to Good. The Idaho Supreme Court determined the district court erred only in its decision with respect to Good’s breach of contract claim and Harry’s Dairy’s breach of the implied warranty of merchantability claims. Judgment was vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Phillips v. Eastern ID Health Svcs

Court: Idaho Supreme Court - Civil

Docket: 45890

Opinion Date: March 11, 2020

Judge: Stegner

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Medical Malpractice

Penny Phillips, her son, and daughter, brought a medical malpractice suit against various Idaho Falls health care providers. Phillips and her children alleged the health care providers were negligent in the care they provided to Phillips’ husband, Scott Phillips, immediately prior to his death by suicide. The district court rejected the Phillipses’ claims by granting summary judgment in favor of the health care providers. The Phillipses appealed several adverse rulings by the district court. The health care providers cross-appealed, contending the district court abused its discretion in amending the scheduling order to allow the Phillipses to name a rebuttal expert. The Idaho Supreme Court determined summary judgment was improvidently granted: it was an abuse of the trial court's discretion in: (1) granting the providers' motion for a protective order preventing the Phillipses from conducting a I.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) deposition regarding the community standard of care; (2) in allowing depositions of local familiarization experts because it did not apply the correct standard; and (3) striking an expert's testimony because that expert demonstrated the requisite actual knowledge of the local standard of care. The court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Phillipses' motion to amend the scheduling order. Therefore, the trial court's judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Carson v. Linley

Court: Supreme Court of Mississippi

Citation: 2019-IA-00170-SCT

Opinion Date: March 12, 2020

Judge: Josiah D. Coleman

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law

Kimberly Carson Linley and Charles Carson were former spouses who shared a child together. Following their divorce, the Oktibbeha County Chancery Court entered a money judgment against Carson. Carson appealed the judgment to the Mississippi Supreme Court and filed an appeal bond. While the appeal was pending, Linley’s attorney executed the money judgment and had writs of garnishments issued by the Oktibbeha County Circuit Court. Once issued, Linley served the writs on Carson’s employer and bank. Carson sued Linley and Hurdle in Scott County, alleging that they conspired to seize his funds. Linley and Hurdle filed motions to transfer venue to Oktibbeha County. The Scott County Circuit Court granted the motions and transferred venue to the Circuit Court of Oktibbeha County. Carson filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing the Scott County Circuit Court had abused its discretion by transferring venue. Because the Scott County Circuit Court abused its discretion by transferring venue, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed its ruling and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

Mississippi State Board of Contractors v. Hobbs Construction, LLC

Court: Supreme Court of Mississippi

Citation: 2018-CA-01389-SCT

Opinion Date: March 6, 2020

Judge: James W. Kitchens

Areas of Law: Business Law, Civil Procedure, Construction Law, Government & Administrative Law

At stake in this appeal before the Mississippi Supreme Court was the ability of Hobbs Construction, LLC, to continue doing business in the state as a commercial general contractor. The Mississippi State Board of Contractors revoked the certificate of responsibility (COR) held by Hobbs. The chancery court granted Hobbs’s motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoined the Board’s revocation decision during the pendency of the appeal. Later the chancery court entered an order reversing the Board’s decision and reinstating Hobbs’s COR. The Board appealed, arguing that the chancery court erred because the Board’s revocation decision was supported by substantial evidence, was not arbitrary and capricious, was within the Board’s power to make, and did not violate Hobbs’s statutory or constitutional rights. The Board argued also that the chancery court erred by granting a preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court determined the Board violated Hobbs’s constitutional right to due process of law by not providing sufficient notice of the charges that were considered at the revocation hearing and were a basis for the revocation decision, therefore it affirmed the chancery court's. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found the chancery court did not err by granting a preliminary injunction.

Colburn v. Saykaly

Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Docket: 2019-0027

Opinion Date: March 11, 2020

Judge: James P. Bassett

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Landlord - Tenant, Real Estate & Property Law

Defendant Nicholas Saykaly appealed a circuit court order issuing a writ of possession to plaintiff, Amanda Colburn. On appeal, defendant argued the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s landlord-tenant action because the home in question was marital property subject to the parties’ ongoing divorce proceeding, and because defendant was not a “tenant” of the plaintiff. He contended the circuit court's Family Division had exclusive jurisdiction over the home until either the divorce proceeding was finalized or the family division relinquished jurisdiction over the home. Because it concluded the district division had jurisdiction to hear and decide this case, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed.

In the Matter of Crystal & Joshua Ndyaija

Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Dockets: 2018-0086, 2018-0153, 2018-0398

Opinion Date: March 11, 2020

Judge: Donovan

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law

Respondent Joshua Ndyaija appealed various Circuit Court orders following the parties’ divorce. He argued the trial court erred by: (1) dismissing his motion for contempt against petitioner Crystal Ndyaija; (2) denying his motion regarding parental interference; (3) denying his motion to restrain; (4) modifying his child support obligations for the parties’ minor child; (5) denying his motion to modify the parties’ parenting plan and permanent stipulation, vacating a provision of the parenting plan, and ordering him to pay the petitioner’s attorney’s fees; and (6) granting the petitioner’s motion to approve daycare enrollment for the child. Respondent also argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination under RSA chapter 458-A (2018), and lacked jurisdiction over the divorce action under RSA 458:5 and :6 (2018). After review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concludes the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over the child custody proceeding under RSA chapter 458-A and the divorce action under RSA 458:5 and :6. Furthermore, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the respondent’s motion for contempt, motion to restrain, and motion regarding parental interference. As for the trial court’s amended uniform support order, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by applying the petitioner’s calculation of respondent’s income in determining his amended child support obligation, declining to adjust the child support obligation, ordering the respondent to pay an arrearage, and ordering him to pay his child support obligation to DCSS by immediate income assignment. However, the Court vacate and remanded the amended uniform support order for the trial court to: (1) consider income from the petitioner’s second job; (2) require petitioner to comply with Family Division Rules 1.25-A(B)(1)(c) and 2.16 by providing four pay stubs per employer or to establish good cause to waive this requirement; and (3) consider the amount of child support the respondent paid during the arrearage period in its arrearage calculation. Finally, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not unsustainably exercise its discretion by denying the respondent’s requests to modify the parties’ parenting plan and permanent stipulation and vacating paragraph G of the parenting plan.

Moscicki v. Leno

Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Docket: 2019-0092

Opinion Date: March 6, 2020

Judge: Donovan

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Landlord - Tenant, Personal Injury

Sandra Moscicki appealed a superior court order denying her motion to exclude expert testimony proffered by the appellees, Charles and Heidi Leno. In July 2008, the Lenos’ twin children, a boy and a girl, were born. In September 2009, the Lenos and their children moved into an apartment owned by Moscicki’s trust. Shortly thereafter, when the children were approximately eighteen months old, Heidi Leno “expressed concerns” regarding their son’s “speech and development.” Charles Leno had also observed that their son exhibited “significant developmental problems in the months before his eighteen-month checkup.” In October 2009, both children were tested for lead. The test revealed that both children had elevated blood lead levels (EBLLs). The children were again tested for lead in July 2010, shortly after their second birthday. This test revealed that they again had EBLLs, higher than previously recorded. Thereafter, the Lenos and their children moved out of Moscicki’s apartment. Moscicki brought an action against the Lenos, seeking unpaid rent. The Lenos then filed an action against Moscicki, alleging that their children suffered harm as a result of lead exposure while living in the apartment. The trial court consolidated these actions. The interlocutory question transferred to the New Hampshire Supreme Court called for the Court to decide whether for an expert opinion on causation to be admissible in a toxic tort case, the expert had to consider the “dose-response relationship” in reaching that opinion. The Supreme Court answered in the negative and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

Crane v. Raber's Discount Tire Rack

Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Docket: 27951

Opinion Date: March 11, 2020

Judge: Few

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law

Danny Crane sought workers' compensation benefits for hearing loss and brain injuries he alleged he suffered in a work-related accident. The workers' compensation commission denied most of Crane's claims, finding he was not entitled to benefits for temporary total disability, permanent impairment, or future medical care. The primary basis for denying these three claims was the commissioner who initially heard the case found Crane was not credible. The court of appeals reversed the commission's denial of temporary total disability benefits, but otherwise affirmed. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the commission's denial of permanent impairment and future medical care benefits, finding the commission erred in denying Crane's claims based on credibility without explaining any basis on which credibility could justify ignoring objective medical evidence. The matter was remanded to the commission for a new hearing on all three claims, and before a different commissioner.

Ethier v. Fairfield Memorial

Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Docket: 27953

Opinion Date: March 11, 2020

Judge: Kaye Gorenflo Hearn

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Medical Malpractice

Petitioners Phillip and Jeanne Ethier appealed a verdict in favor of Respondent Dr. Guy Bibeau, who misdiagnosed a popliteal aneurysm as a probable spider bite. During voir dire, the court asked prospective jurors whether they ever had a "close social or a personal relationship" with either the Ethiers or Dr. Bibeau. After no one indicated they did, the court asked the same question about the list of potential witnesses, which included Jerilyn Wadford and Rhonda Gwynn, two nurses who examined Ethier, and the CEO of Fairfield Memorial, Mike Williams. To this question, juror Teresa Killian informed the court, "I used to work at Fairfield Memorial Hospital with Mike Williams." Killian never disclosed that she also worked with Bibeau or the two nurses. After trial, the Ethiers' counsel learned Killian previously worked with Bibeau and the nurses, and that Killian had discussed her knowledge of them with other jurors. One of the jurors, Sandra Carmichael, attested Killian stated she knew the nurses as well as Bibeau. Carmichael also noted that during jury breaks, Killian repeatedly discussed Bibeau's skills as a doctor. Four jurors said Killian vouched for the skill, proficiency, and truthfulness of all three during jury breaks. Carmichael testified that Killian's statements affected her vote, as she initially believed Bibeau was more negligent. Nevertheless, while the trial court found Killian had engaged in premature deliberations, it found no prejudice. The court also believed Killian did not intentionally conceal that she knew Bibeau and the three nurses through her previous employment, contending the question was ambiguous because it only addressed "close personal or social relationships." Accordingly, the trial court denied the Ethiers' motion for a new trial. Petitioners contended the court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court's decision to deny granting a new trial based on intentional juror concealment and premature deliberations. The South Carolina Supreme Court concluded Killian's intentional disregard of the trial court's repeated instructions not to engage in premature deliberations directly affected the verdict. "Killian discussed matters that were not introduced as evidence, and bolstered other evidence that had been admitted. Further, Killian's conduct is egregious, as she repeatedly discussed the case after being instructed not to do so." Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial.

State ex rel. Ferrell v. Honorable Warren R. McGraw

Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

Docket: 19-0658

Opinion Date: March 10, 2020

Judge: Walker

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition sought by Petitioners to halt the litigation of Respondents' breach of contract and related tort claims against them in the Circuit Court of Wyoming County for lack of venue, holding that Respondents failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that venue for their civil action properly lay in Wyoming County. In this action involving an alleged breach of a purchase agreement, Respondents filed a complaint alleging six causes of action against Petitioners. In the complaint, Respondents stated that venue was proper in Wyoming County because the parties conducted business in Wyoming County. Petitioners moved to dismiss for lack of venue, arguing that the operative business relationship between the entities took place entirely within Kanawha County. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, and Petitioners filed this petition for a writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that Respondents failed to establish proper venue in Wyoming County under the framework of W. Va. Code 56-1-1.