Latest 26 Cases This Week: Shelby Advocates for Valid Elections v. Hargett (6th Cir.), A.F. Moore & Associates, Inc. v. Pappas (7th Cir.), Holbein ...

Should Animals Be Allowed to Sue?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on case in which Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) brought a civil damages suit on behalf of an abused horse, now named Justice, against the horse’s former owner. Colb dismantles three arguments critics raise in opposition to recognizing abused animals as plaintiffs in lawsuits such as this one.

Read More

Shelby Advocates for Valid Elections v. Hargett

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 19-6142

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

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

The plaintiffs sued, alleging that, in future elections, the defendants (various officials) will burden their right to vote, dilute their votes, and disenfranchise them in violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. The plaintiffs cited election administration problems: election workers are poorly trained, sometimes distributing the wrong ballots, sometimes recording the wrong address when registering a voter; failure to recertify the voting machines; failure to follow fair protocols for uploading votes; the use of digital voting machines, vulnerable to hacking and cyberattacks, that do not produce a paper record of each voter’s choices. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. The complaint’s allegations with respect to injury all reference prior system vulnerabilities, previous equipment malfunctions, and past election mistakes; nearly all of the allegations of past harm stem from human error rather than errors caused by the voting machines or hacking. Fear that individual mistakes will recur, generally speaking, does not create a cognizable imminent risk of harm. The plaintiffs do not allege that Shelby County election officials always make these mistakes or that the government entities ordered the election workers to make such mistakes. The plaintiffs have not plausibly shown that there is a substantial risk of vote flipping. Without imminent harm, the individual plaintiffs have no standing to sue. The plaintiffs allege only policies that add risk to the ever-present possibility that an election worker will make a mistake.

A.F. Moore & Associates, Inc. v. Pappas

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Dockets: 19-1971, 19-1979

Opinion Date: January 29, 2020

Judge: Barrett

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Tax Law

Before 2008, Cook County ordinances required the Assessor to assess single-family residential property at 16%, commercial property at 38%, and industrial property at 36% of the market value. In 2000-2008, the Assessor actually assessed most property at rates significantly lower than the ordinance rates. In 2008, the Assessor proposed to “recalibrate” the system. The plaintiffs claim that their assessment rates may have been lawful but were significantly higher than the actual rates for most other property owners and that they paid millions of dollars more in taxes in 2000-2008 than they would have if they were assessed at the de facto rates. The taxpayers exhausted their remedies with the Board of Review, then filed suit in state court, citing the Equal Protection Clause, Illinois statutory law and the Illinois Constitution. Years later, their state suit remains in discovery. Claiming that Illinois law limits whom they can name as a defendant, what evidence they can present, and what arguments they can raise, the taxpayers filed suit in federal district court, which held that the Tax Injunction Act barred the suit. The Act provides that district courts may not “enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State,” 28 U.S.C. 1341. The Seventh Circuit reversed, noting the County’s concession that Illinois’s tax-objection procedures do not allow the taxpayers to raise their constitutional claims in state court. This is the “rare case in which taxpayers lack an adequate state-court remedy.”

Holbein v. Baxter Chrysler Jeep, Inc.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 18-2892

Opinion Date: January 29, 2020

Judge: Raymond W. Gruender

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Labor & Employment Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's amended complaint against TAW Enterprises, alleging that TAW retaliated against plaintiff in contravention of public policy established by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and breached its employment contract with plaintiff. The court held that neither this court or the district court could properly exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this action because removal premised on diversity jurisdiction would violate the forum-defendant rule, a jurisdictional defect in this circuit, and plaintiff's amended complaint did not present a federal question. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to the district court to remand the case to state court.

Ex parte BBH BMC, LLC, d/b/a Brookwood Baptist Medical Center.

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

Docket: 1180961

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Michael F. Bolin

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Health Law, Personal Injury

BBH BMC, LLC, d/b/a Brookwood Baptist Medical Center ("Brookwood") petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Jefferson Circuit Court to vacate its order compelling Brookwood to respond to certain interrogatories and requests for production. Donna Gaston arrived at Brookwood Baptist Medical Center ("the medical center") to participate in a voluntary psychiatric outpatient-treatment program. At approximately 8:40 a.m., Donna registered for the 9:00 a.m. outpatient group-therapy session in which she had enrolled. She then left the therapy area, accessed a parking deck on the premises of the medical center, and leaped to her death. Charles Gaston, Donna's husband, filed a wrongful-death action seeking to hold Brookwood liable for Donna's suicide. Specifically, he alleged the conduct of Brookwood's nurses and security fell below the applicable standard of care. The Supreme Court determined that although Gaston could discover information concerning those acts or omissions by those employees whose conduct was detailed specifically and factually described in the complaint as rendering Brookwood liable for Donna's death, Gaston was not entitled to discovery regarding acts or omissions by Brookwood related to other incidents. Therefore, because the requested discovery sought evidence of other acts or omissions of Brookwood and its employees beyond the alleged standard of care owed to Donna, Brookwood had shown a clear legal right to have the trial court's discovery order vacated.

Ex parte Dow AgroSciences LLC.

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

Docket: 1180887

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Mendheim

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Contracts

Dow AgroSciences LLC ("DAS"), a counterclaim defendant, petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus challenging a circuit court’s refusal to dismiss a fraud claim filed against it by defendant Robert Ward in an action filed by Andalusia Farmers Cooperative ("AFC") against Ward. Specifically, DAS contended that Ward's fraud claim was plainly barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Supreme Court agreed and granted the petition.

Ex parte Willimon & Wallace-Padgett.

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

Docket: 1180439

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Tom Parker

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Personal Injury

William "Will" Willimon, the former bishop of the North Alabama Annual Conference, United Methodist Church, Inc. ("the Conference"), and Debra Wallace-Padgett, the current bishop, petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Talladega Circuit Court to grant them protective orders or, alternatively, to quash their deposition notices in an action against a former youth pastor alleging sexual abuse. Charles Terrell, one of the defendants in the underlying action, was a former youth pastor at First United Methodist Church of Sylacauga ("the Church"). The plaintiff, J.N., was a minor male congregant in the Church who filed the underlying action alleging Terrell had sexually abused him. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding the bishops failed to demonstrate that J.N.'s requested depositions were merely a fishing expedition to discover impeachment evidence. Thus, they failed to demonstrate they had a clear legal right to a protective order or to an order quashing their deposition notices on that basis.

Player v. J. C.

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

Docket: 1180606

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Mendheim

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Trusts & Estates

Zambia Player appealed two circuit court orders issued in regard to her administration of the estate of her brother, Jabari Player. Jabari died intestate in 2013, leaving as his sole heir at law his 14-year-old daughter J.C. In 2017, Zambia filed a "Petition for Letters of Administration," and, after posting a bond, she was appointed administratrix of Jabari's estate. Zambia filed an "Inventory of the Estate of Jabari Player," which showed the value of Jabari's estate to be $20,862. J.C. protested this inventory through counsel. For reasons that were not clear, a guardian ad litem was not appointed on J.C.'s behalf until four years later. For several years Zambia did nothing to close the estate or to surrender the property in the estate to J.C. Through her guardian ad litem, J.C. filed a petition to remove the estate to the Etowah Circuit Court. Following the removal of the estate, J.C. moved to compel an accounting. Zambia failed to comply with the accounting order; thereafter, J.C. moved to remove Zambia as personal representative of the estate. In response, Zambia filed a “petition for final settlement” of the estate. The circuit court still insisted on a “formal accounting.” At the hearing on J.C.’s motion to remove Zambia, Zambia appeared pro se and testified concerning her administration of the estate. Zambia essentially testified that she had relied upon her former attorney for all of her actions and that she did not mean to mismanage the estate, but Zambia essentially admitted that she had commingled estate funds and property with her personal accounts and property. The following day, the circuit court entered an order that, among other things, removed Zambia as personal representative of the estate, and it denied Zambia's petition for approval of her final accounting. The Supreme Court determined Zambia's appeal of the order removing her as personal representative of Jabari's estate was not timely; therefore that part of Zambia's appeal was not properly before the Supreme Court and was dismissed. Zambia also did not demonstrate that the circuit court erred in its order assessing damages against her for malfeasance in administering the estate. Therefore, that order was affirmed.

Alaska, Department of Health & Social Services v. Dara S.

Court: Alaska Supreme Court

Dockets: S-16126, S-16526, S-16527

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Daniel E. Winfree

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

The Alaska Supreme Court has held previously that, under some circumstances, a parent whose parental rights have been involuntarily terminated under Alaska’s child in need of aid (CINA) statutes could seek post-termination review and reinstatement of parental rights. A superior court may vacate a termination order if the child has not yet been adopted and the parent demonstrates, “by clear and convincing evidence, that reinstatement of parental rights is in the best interest of the child and that the person is rehabilitated and capable of providing the care and guidance that will serve the moral, emotional, mental, and physical welfare of the child.” Dara S. was the biological mother of Paxton, born February 2011, Paxton was born in Alaska but lived with Dara’s sister and brother-in-law, Scarlet and Monty, in Oregon since being placed with them by OCS in April 2014. Dara visited Paxton in July 2014 and decided to stay in Oregon. Dara’s parental rights to her son had were ultimately terminated as a result of her mental health issues. She timely sought review and reinstatement of her parental rights, and an Alaskan superior court granted review and ultimately granted her reinstatement request. The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) and the child’s guardian ad litem (GAL) appealed the reinstatement decision, arguing both that post-termination reinstatement of parental rights after an involuntary termination was barred as a matter of law and that the mother had not proved by clear and convincing evidence that reinstatement was in the child’s best interests. The Alaska Supreme Court rejected the argument that reinstatement was barred as a matter of law, but remanded the case to the superior court for further elucidation of its best interests determination. The superior court held a post-remand evidentiary hearing and ultimately confirmed its best interests determination. OCS, joined by the GAL, appealed that determination, arguing that some of the court’s underlying factual findings, and therefore its ultimate best interests finding, were clearly erroneous, and that the reinstatement order therefore had to be vacated, leaving the parental rights termination in place. The Supreme Court determined the disputed underlying factual findings supporting the best interests determination either were not material or not clearly erroneous. Therefore, it concluded the superior court’s reinstatement decision should have been affirmed.

K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified School District

Court: Supreme Court of California

Docket: S241057

Opinion Date: January 30, 2020

Judge: Groban

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Personal Injury

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeal dismissing an appeal of an order directing an attorney to pay sanctions because the notice of appeal identified the attorney's client as the appealing party but other indicia made it clear that the attorney was the party seeking review, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the notice of appeal should be construed to include the omitted attorney. Attorney represented K.J. in a negligence action against the Los Angeles Unified School District (collectively, LAUSD). During the litigation, LAUSD filed an application seeking sanctions from Attorney. The trial court awarded sanctions based on its finding that Attorney had violated discovery statutes. A notice of appeal was filed by K.J.'s attorney. The court of appeal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that when a sanctions order is entered against an attorney, the right of appeal is vested in the attorney and not the attorney's client. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that when it is clear from the record that the omitted attorney intended to participate in the appeal and the respondent was not misled or prejudiced by the omission, the rule of liberal construction requires that the notice be construed to include the omitted attorney.

Fenimore v. The Regents of the University of California

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: B289797(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 27, 2020

Judge: Wiley

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint. The court held that the foundation of the ruling was an incorrect timing computation about the statute of limitations. In this case, the Hospitals conceded that the trial court's timing computation was in error and the statute of limitations did not bar plaintiff's motion for leave to file his second amended complaint.

Pacific Pioneer Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct.

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: G057326(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 30, 2020

Judge: William W. Bedsworth

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Insurance Law

In a case of first impression, the Court of Appeal was asked to determine whether insurers have the right to appeal a small claims default judgment entered against their insureds. Vanessa Gonzalez sued Jonathan Johnson in small claims court after an auto accident in Orange, California. Johnson did not show up for the small claims hearing, and the small claims court entered a default judgment against him for $10,000, plus $140 in costs. Johnson’s auto insurer was Pacific Pioneer Insurance Company. Pacific Pioneer filed a timely notice of appeal. The trial court struck the notice of appeal, and Pacific Pioneer sought to set aside that order. This prompted the trial court to compose a minute order explaining why it had struck the notice: Code of Civil Procedure 116.710(d) precluded a non-appearing “defendant” - which the court equated with Pacific Pioneer - from appealing a small claims judgment. Pacific Pioneer then filed this writ petition, challenging the trial court’s reading of the relevant statutes. The Court of Appeal concluded the insured’s failure to appear in small claims court did not annul the appeal right conferred upon the insurer by Code of Civil Procedure section 116.710(c). The trial court thus erred in striking Pacific Pioneer’s notice of appeal. The Court issued a writ to direct the trial court to vacate its order striking Pacific Pioneer’s notice of appeal, and to reinstate its appeal of the small claims judgment in favor of Gonzalez.

People ex rel. Lacey v. Robles

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: B290697(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 29, 2020

Judge: Baker

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law

The District Attorney sued defendant in quo warranto, contending that defendant was violating Government Code section 1099, which makes it unlawful to simultaneously hold incompatible public offices. In this case, defendant served simultaneously as a member of the board of directors of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) and as mayor of Carson, California. The Court of Appeal held that the District Attorney properly initiated the quo warranto action under Code of Civil Procedure section 803. The court also held that defendant's dual offices were incompatible because they gave rise to a possibility of conflict in duties or loyalties and there was no law compelling or expressly authorizing him to hold both offices. Finally, the court held that the District Attorney was not required to reapply for leave to maintain the quo warranto suit; the order precluding defendant from deposing the District Attorney was not an abuse of discretion; and the trial court did not rely on evidence previously excluded as inadmissible.

In re Marriage of Durie

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Citation: 2020 CO 7

Opinion Date: January 27, 2020

Judge: Samour

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law

Husband Steven Durie brought a dissolution of marriage action in April 2014. He and his then-wife, Wife Kelly subsequently exchanged sworn financial statements, mandatory disclosures, and supplemental disclosures. In line with C.R.C.P. 16.2(g), the parties jointly selected and retained an expert to value their businesses: Coin Toss, LLC, a holding company, and the two companies owned by Coin Toss: Rock Paper Scissors, Inc., d/b/a Secure Search, and Sandbox Sharing, LLC, d/b/a Safeguard from Abuse. The parties integrated this value into the property division of the marital estate set forth in their separation agreement, which was in turn, integrated into the decree of dissolution. Thirteen months after the court issued the decree of dissolution, Husband sold a portion of Secure Search’s assets to a Tennessee company, for an amount more than 685% higher than the value assigned to Coin Toss in the separation agreement. When Wife learned of the sale, and “[b]elieving she smelled a rat,” she filed a motion pursuant to Rule 16.2(e)(10) to set aside or reopen the property division in order to reallocate the proceeds from the post-decree sale. Husband moved to dismiss. Although Husband did not cite the rule in his motion, Wife urged the court to treat it as a Rule 12(b)(5) motion and to apply "Warne’s" plausibility standard in evaluating her 16.2(e)(10) motion. The court granted Husband’s motion to dismiss. Wife appealed, and the Colorado Supreme Court held that hold that Rule 12(b)(5) and the plausibility standard in Warne did not apply to Rule 16.2(e)(10) motions. Instead, the Court held that, consistent with C.R.C.P. 7(b), a Rule 16.2(e)(10) motion must “state with particularity” the grounds on which it is premised, but this did not preclude allegations that were based on information and belief when the moving party lacked direct knowledge about those allegations. “So long as the motion satisfies the particularity requirement in Rule 7(b)(1), it may include such allegations.” The matter was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings.

Germaninvestments AG v. Allomet Corporation

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Docket: 291, 2019

Opinion Date: January 27, 2020

Judge: Karen L. Valihura

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

Plaintiff-appellant Germaninvestments Aktiengesellschaft (AG) (“Germaninvestments”) was a Swiss holding company formed to manage assets for the Herrling family. Defendant Allomet Corporation (“Allomet”) was a Delaware corporation that manufactured high-performance, tough-coated metal powders using a proprietary technology for coating industrial products. Defendant Yanchep LLC (“Yanchep”), was also a Delaware limited liability company with Mirta Hereth as its sole member (together, Allomet and Yanchep are referred to as “Appellees”). Allomet struggled with declining performance as early as 2002. In mid-2016, Tanja Hausfelder, an insurance professional who apparently knew or worked with the Herrlings and Hereth, advised Herrling that Hereth was looking for a joint venture partner to join Allomet. After a meeting in Switzerland, Herrling and Hereth discussed a general structure for their joint venture to raise capital for Allomet. The issue this case presented for the Delaware Supreme Court’s review centered on whether the Court of Chancery correctly determined that a provision in a Restructuring and Loan Agreement between the parties was a mandatory, as opposed to a permissive, forum selection clause. The Court of Chancery held that Austrian law governed the analysis of the forum selection provision, and determined that the provision is governed by Article 25 of the European Regulation on Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. Based upon these conclusions, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss in favor of the Austrian forum. The Delaware Supreme Court held that Appellees, who raised Austrian law as a basis for their motion to dismiss, had the burden of establishing the substance of Austrian law, and that the Court of Chancery erred in determining that Appellees had carried that burden. Accordingly, the forum selection provision analysis should have proceeded exclusively under Delaware law. Applying Delaware law, the Delaware Court determined the forum selection provision was permissive, not mandatory. “As such, the forum selection provision is no bar to the litigation proceeding in Delaware.” The Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s holding that 8 Del. C. section 168 was not the proper mechanism for the relief Appellants sought. Therefore, this matter was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the Court of Chancery for further proceedings.

West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. TRRS Corp.

Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

Citation: 2019 IL 124690

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Thomas L. Kilbride

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law

West Bend's insurance policy required that TRRS provide timely notice of a covered worker’s injury. TRRS employee Bernardino was injured in the scope of his employment. West Bend claimed that TRRS did not timely report Bernardino’s injury but paid Bernardino’s lost wages and medical expenses relating to the injury without West Bend’s knowledge or permission. West Bend sent TRRS a reservation of rights letter, stating that West Bend would not reimburse any voluntary payments they made in connection with Bernardino’s injury. Bernardino filed a claim with the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission (IWCC) and filed a separate negligence action against several defendants, including his employers. West Bend sought a judgment declaring that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify TRRS then filed an emergency motion to stay the pending IWCC proceeding. Bernardino argued that West Bend had not sufficiently proved that it had issued an insurance policy covering the worksite where he was injured, precluding the circuit court from making a coverage determination. The circuit court entered an order staying the IWCC proceedings, finding that it had "primary jurisdiction." The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court disagreed. The primary jurisdiction doctrine generally “provides that where a court has jurisdiction over a matter, it should in some instances stay the judicial proceedings pending referral of a controversy, or some portion of it, to an administrative agency.” A trial court cannot rely on that doctrine to stay IWCC proceedings.

Caldwell v. St. Charles Gaming Co d/b/a Isle of Capri Casino-Lake Charles

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Docket: 2019-CC-01238

Opinion Date: January 29, 2020

Judge: Boddie

Areas of Law: Admiralty & Maritime Law, Civil Procedure, Gaming Law, Personal Injury

Plaintiff was employed by defendant Grand Palais Riverboat L.L.C. as a technician on the Grand Palais riverboat casino, and was injured when the gangway attached to the boat malfunctioned and collapsed. Plaintiff filed a petition for damages, alleging that the Grand Palais was a vessel under general maritime law, 1 U.S.C. 3, and that he was a seaman under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 30104, et seq., at the time of the accident. The Grand Palais was built as a riverboat casino in conformity with the requirements of Louisiana law which authorize gaming activities to be conducted on riverboat casinos that sail on designated waterways. In 2001, the Grand Palais was moored to its current location by nylon mooring lines and steel wire cables, pursuant to La. R. S. 27:65(B)(1)(c), which allowed riverboat casinos to conduct gaming activities while docked if the owner obtained the required license and paid the required franchise fees. The Grand Palais had not moved since March 24, 2001. Necessary services for the Grand Palais’s operation as a casino were provided via shore-side utility lines, which supply electricity, water, sewage, cable television, telephone and internet services. These utility lines have not been disconnected since 2001. Additionally, the casino computer systems, including the slot machines, are located on land. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to review an appellate court's decision granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and holding the Grand Palais Casino was indeed a “vessel” for purposes of general maritime law. The Court determined this decision contradicted the court’s earlier decision in Benoit v. St. Charles Gaming Company, LLC, 233 So. 3d 615, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 104, 202 L. Ed. 2d 29 (2018), which held the Grand Palais was not a vessel. After a de novo review of the record, the Louisiana Court concluded the Grand Palais was a not vessel under general maritime law. Therefore, it reversed the judgment of the court of appeal and granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff’s suit.

Crooks v. Dept. of Natural Res.

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Docket: 2019-C-00160

Opinion Date: January 29, 2020

Judge: Kirby

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Class Action, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

In 1962, the United States began constructing various structures in and around the Catahoula Basin pursuant to a congressionally-approved navigation project under the River and Harbor Act of 1960 to promote navigation on the Ouachita and Black Rivers. In conjunction with that project, the State of Louisiana signed an “Act of Assurances,” which obligated the State to provide the federal government with all lands and property interests necessary to the project free of charge, and to indemnify the federal government from any damages resulting from the project. In 2006, plaintiffs Steve Crooks and Era Lea Crooks filed a “Class Action Petition to Fix Boundary, For Damages and For Declaration [sic] Judgment.” The Crookses alleged they represented a class of landowners in the Catahoula Basin whose property was affected by increased water levels from the project. Ultimately, the trial court certified the plaintiffs as one class, but subdivided that class into two groups – the “Lake Plaintiffs” and the “Swamp Plaintiffs” – depending on the location of the properties affected. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to determine whether the plaintiffs’ inverse condemnation claims for compensation against the State were prescribed under La. R.S. 13:5111 and/or 28 U.S.C. 2501. The lower courts relied on the decision in Cooper v. Louisiana Department of Public Works, 870 So. 2d 315 (2004), to conclude the one-year prescriptive period for damage to immovable property found in La. C.C. art. 3493 governed, and the continuing tort doctrine applied to prevent the running of prescription on the plaintiffs’ claims. The Supreme Court found the lower courts erred in relying on Cooper and held that the three-year prescriptive period for actions for compensation for property taken by the state set forth in La. R. S. 13:5111 governed and the plaintiffs’ inverse condemnation claims were prescribed.

Joseph v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. et al.

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Docket: 2018-CC-02061

Opinion Date: January 29, 2020

Judge: John L. Weimer

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Personal Injury, Products Liability

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the preclusive effect of a written compromise agreement. The agreement was executed by a tort victim in settlement of an action for damages resulting from occupational exposure to toxic materials. At issue was the effect of the compromise on a subsequent survival action brought by the La. C.C. art. 2315.1 beneficiaries of the tort victim, who contracted mesothelioma and died after entering into the compromise. Finding the intent of the parties to the compromise to be clear, unambiguous and unequivocal, and the elements of the res judicata plea satisfied, the Supreme Court concluded the compromise should have been accorded preclusive effect. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court judgment that declined to give res judicata effect to the compromise and sustained the exception of res judicata with respect to the survival action.

Thomas v. Regional Health System of Acadiana, LLC

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Docket: 2019-C-00507

Opinion Date: January 29, 2020

Judge: Chehardy

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Health Law, Medical Malpractice

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted writs in consolidated matters to consider whether allegations of negligent credentialing against two healthcare providers were claims that fell within the purview of Louisiana’s Medical Malpractice Act or, alternatively, sounded in general negligence. Mariah Charles was born prematurely in October 2014 at Lafayette General Medical Center (LGMC) and hospitalized there until March 2015, when she was transferred to Women’s and Children’s Hospital of Lafayette (W&C) until her release a month later. Dr. Geeta Dalal, a pediatric cardiologist with clinical privileges at both hospitals, contributed to Mariah’s care during and after Mariah’s hospitalization. While Mariah remained at LGMC, Dr. Dalal ordered and interpreted eight echocardiograms that, according to the petition, revealed abnormal findings that could cause pulmonary artery hypertension, yet, the petition alleged Dr. Dalal took no action other than ordering additional echocardiograms. After Mariah’s transfer to W&C, Dr. Dalal interpreted more echocardiograms, again noted abnormalities, and allegedly failed to properly diagnose or treat Mariah. Mariah’s mother initiated Medical Review Panel proceedings with the Patient’s Compensation Fund against Dr. Dalal and the hospital defendants alleging medical malpractice and seeking damages for their alleged failure to properly diagnose and treat Mariah. In addition to the Medical Review Panel proceedings, Mariah's mother filed suit against the hospitals, The Regional Health System of Acadiana, LLC, Women’s & Children’s Hospital, Inc., HCA Holdings, Inc., and Health Care Indemnity, Inc. (W&C), as well as Lafayette General Medical Center, Inc. and/or Lafayette General Health System, Inc. (LGMC), for damages related to Mariah’s care. The petition for damages asserted a single cause of action that LGMC and W&C were liable under general tort law because they “negligently credentialed Dr. Dalal and negligently provided her with privileges to practice” in their facilities “even though [they] knew or should have known she was not board certified in the field of pediatric cardiology.” LGMC and W&C filed dilatory exceptions of prematurity to this suit, asserting that they were qualified healthcare providers under the MMA and were entitled to have Thomas’s negligent credentialing claims presented first to a medical review panel pursuant to R.S. 40:1231.8(B)(1)(a)(i). Based on the allegations presented by the petition, the provisions of the LMMA, and application of the "Coleman" factors, the Supreme Court found the trial court correctly sustained the exceptions of prematurity raised by LGMC and W&C, therefore reversing the court of appeal's judgment and reinstated the trial court’s judgment.

Loyd v. Family Dollar Stores of Nebraska, Inc

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Citation: 304 Neb. 883

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Michael G. Heavican

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Labor & Employment Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from an order disapproving the parties' application for an order approving a lump-sum settlement on the grounds that the application was not in compliance with the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-101 et seq., holding that the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court's order of disapproval was not a final, appealable order. Plaintiff filed a petition seeking benefits for injuries she sustained while working for Employer. The parties eventually agreed to settle the dispute for a lump-sum payment of $150,000, along with the establishment of an interest-bearing account for additional medical payments. The parties filed a joint stipulation, but the stipulation did not include the amount of fees and costs. The compensation court disapproved the lump sum settlement application and joint stipulation, finding that the application and joint stipulation were not in compliance with the Act and not in the best interests of Plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the compensation court's order of disapproval, standing alone, was not a final, appealable order.

Estate of Albrecht

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: 2020 ND 27

Opinion Date: January 29, 2020

Judge: Jerod E. Tufte

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law, Trusts & Estates

Glenvin Albrecht (“Glen”) appealed judgment entered in favor of the Estate of Sharleen Albrecht (“Estate”) regarding certain assets in which he had an ownership interest. In February 2010, Glen sued Sharleen for divorce after nearly 50 years of marriage. Sharleen died on July 29, 2013, before a final divorce judgment was entered. The district court entered a final divorce judgment after her death, and the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding Sharleen's death abated the divorce action. Sharleen had a will, and Sharleen and Glen's son, Mark Albrecht, was appointed personal representative of the Estate. In February 2017, the Estate petitioned for the return, partition, and sale of estate assets. The Estate alleged Sharleen owned a one-half interest in various farm machinery, equipment, and vehicles, which were in Glen's control. The Estate alleged a partition and sale of the assets was necessary to satisfy estate expenses. Glen objected to the petition, arguing Sharleen did not have an ownership interest in the assets. A trial was conducted in 2018, the result of which ended with judgment in favor of the estate. Glen argued on appeal that the district court erred by finding Sharleen had an interest in the assets at issue, and the court abused its discretion by allowing personal representative’s and attorney’s fees. Finding no reversible error or abuse of discretion, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.

Krebsbach, et al. v. Trinity Hospitals, Inc., et al.

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: 2020 ND 24

Opinion Date: January 27, 2020

Judge: Daniel J. Crothers

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury

Mark Krebsbach appeals a district court judgment dismissing his lawsuit against Trinity Hospital relating to medical services provided to his wife. Krystal Krebsbach died in June 2016. In September 2013 she was diagnosed with hepatitis C while a patient at the ManorCare nursing home in Minot. Krystal’s diagnosis occurred during a hepatitis C outbreak in the Minot area. In September 2016 Krebsbach moved to intervene in a lawsuit with other plaintiffs against Trinity related to the hepatitis C outbreak. The district court granted Krebsbach’s motion in December 2016. Krebsbach’s complaint against Trinity alleged negligence, fraud, deceit and unlawful sales and advertising practices. Krebsbach claimed negligence and misconduct by Trinity’s staff and management caused Krystal Krebsbach’s hepatitis C. Krebsbach alleged Trinity engaged in actual fraud or deceit by misrepresenting the competency of its care providers and withholding information about its employees’ theft or misuse of drugs (known as drug diversion) and needle reuse. Krebsbach asserted Krystal Krebsbach relied on Trinity’s misrepresentations and allowed Trinity to provide her with phlebotomy services, which caused her to contract hepatitis C. The court dismissed Krebsbach’s action after a special master appointed by the court concluded the two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice applied to Krebsbach’s action. The special master also concluded the action was barred because Krebsbach had notice of Trinity’s possible negligence more than two years before bringing his lawsuit. Krebsbach claimed the six-year statute of limitations under N.D.C.C. 28-01-16 applies to his negligence claims against Trinity. Before the North Dakota Supreme Court, Krebsbach argued the special master and district court erred in concluding he was on notice of Trinity’s possible negligence more than two years before commencing his action against Trinity. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed dismissal.

Jones v. Four Corners Rod & Gun Club

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Docket: S066044

Opinion Date: January 30, 2020

Judge: Flynn

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Contracts, Labor & Employment Law

This appeal stemmed from plaintiff Rich Jones’ civil action to recover unpaid wages that defendant Four Corners Rod & Gun Club unlawfully withheld after the parties agreed to trade a lodging benefit for labor. Although Oregon’s wage laws authorized employers to deduct from an employee’s wages “the fair market value of lodging, meals or other facilities or services furnished by the employer for the private benefit of the employee,” those laws also prohibited employers from taking any deduction from wages unless the employer obtains the employee’s advance written authorization and keeps a record of the deductions. Defendant admittedly failed to comply with the requirements for deducting the lodging benefit from plaintiff’s wages. The issue this case presented for the Oregon Supreme Court’s review was whether defendant’s violation of ORS 652.610(3) prevented defendant from asserting an equitable claim for the value of the lodging benefit, either as an affirmative defense to plaintiff’s wage claim or as a lawful counterclaim. The Supreme Court concluded that defendant’s unlawful withholding of wages prevented it from asserting the value of the lodging benefit as an affirmative defense to defeat plaintiff’s wage claim, but did not prevent defendant from asserting an equitable counterclaim for the value of the lodging benefit.

State ex rel. Coventry Police Department v. Charlwood

Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Docket: 17-388

Opinion Date: January 27, 2020

Judge: Paul A. Suttell

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court quashed the order of the district court denying Appellant's motion to seal his records under R.I. Gen. Laws 12-1-12 on the grounds that because Defendant was charged with a civil violation rather than a criminal violation, he was not entitled to relief under the statute, holding that a person charged with a first violation of driving with a suspended license is entitled to have his records sealed under the provisions of section 12-1-12. In denying Defendant's motion to seal his records, the trial judge looked to the language of the statute, noting that it speaks only to criminal cases and is silent with respect to civil violations, and concluded that the Legislature had provided no mechanism to seal or expunge civil violations. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that where Defendant was detained by police but not arrested or charged with an offense, he was entitled to the benefits of section 12-1-12(a) with respect to the destruction and sealing of his records.

Hensley v. SCDSS

Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Docket: 27941

Opinion Date: January 29, 2020

Judge: Few

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Class Action, Family Law, Government & Administrative Law

Kenneth and Angela Hensley filed suit against the South Carolina Department of Social Services on behalf of their adopted minor child BLH and a class of approximately 4000 similarly situated adopted children. The central allegation of the lawsuit was that DSS breached an Adoption Subsidy Agreement with the parents of each member of the class by reducing each parent's adoption subsidy by $20 a month, beginning in 2002. The circuit court issued an order finding the Hensleys satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, and certifying the proposed class. The court of appeals reversed. The South Carolina Supreme Court found the circuit court's order was not immediately appealable, and vacated the court of appeals' opinion and dismissed the appeal.

Chittenden County Sheriff's Department v. Department of Labor

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Citation: 2020 VT 4

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Eaton

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

The Chittenden County, Vermont Sheriff’s Department (CCSD) appealed the Vermont Employment Security Board’s ruling that the CCSD was not entitled to relief from several weeks of unemployment compensation benefits which it paid to a former CCSD employee, Michael Major, due to an alleged erroneous determination by a Board claims adjudicator. The CCSD and the State both appealed a claims adjudicator’s decision to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who, following a hearing, reversed the claims adjudicator’s determination and found that Major had voluntarily quit and was therefore not entitled to unemployment benefits. As part of that determination, the ALJ waived any requirement that Major repay the benefits he had received because the ordered payments were not a result of any nondisclosure or material misrepresentation on his part. The ALJ also refused to allow the CCSD or the State relief from benefits already paid to Major as a result of the claims adjudicator’s determination. Although the ALJ concluded the State was Major’s last employing unit, the ALJ further determined that neither Major nor the sheriff made any distinction between Major’s employment by the State or the CCSD and that, in practice, Major’s position as a State transport deputy and his duties from the CCSD were one and the same. The ALJ refused to allow the CCSD and the State to be relieved of benefits they had paid to Major because both employers had chosen not to pay quarterly unemployment insurance tax, but instead elected to make reimbursement payments to the unemployment compensation fund for benefits they were ordered to pay. As a result of being a reimbursing employer, rather than a contributing one, the CCSD was liable to reimburse the unemployment fund, and could not be relieved of those charges. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, finding the plain language of 21 V.S.A. 1321(f) made it “abundantly clear to all eligible employers” that, should they select reimbursing status, they would assume responsibility for benefits paid but denied on appeal. “Having availed itself of this advantage, the CCSD cannot now avoid the financial obligations, including the risk of liability for benefits paid in error, it accepted in exchange.”