Justia Professional Malpractice & Ethics Opinion Summaries

Several hundred children in Benton Harbor, Michigan, suffered from elevated lead levels in their blood after drinking lead-contaminated water from the city’s public water system for three years. Plaintiffs, represented by their guardians, filed a lawsuit against various state and city officials, as well as two engineering firms, alleging that these parties failed to mitigate the lead-water crisis and misled the public about the dangers of the drinking water. The claims included substantive-due-process and state-created-danger claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state-law negligence claims.The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed the complaint in full. The court found that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege a violation of their constitutional rights and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their federal claims against the city and state officials and the state-law claims against one of the engineering firms.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of the claims against the state officials, finding that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that these officials acted with deliberate indifference. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the claims against the city officials and the City of Benton Harbor, finding that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that these officials misled the public about the safety of the water, thereby causing the plaintiffs to drink contaminated water. The court also reversed the district court’s declination of supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against the engineering firm and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of leave to amend the complaint. View "Mitchell v. City of Benton Harbor" on Justia Law

Patrick Bolduc and Savannah Getchius were married in 2011 and have three minor children. Bolduc filed for divorce in 2021. After two unsuccessful mediations, a final divorce hearing was held in June 2023. The District Court awarded Bolduc sole parental rights and responsibilities and divided the marital property. The court found that Bolduc's property, purchased before the marriage, appreciated in value during the marriage due to both market forces and marital improvements.The District Court determined that the entire appreciation of the property during the marriage was marital property. The court also ordered Getchius to pay $325 weekly in child support and $10,000 of Bolduc's attorney fees. Bolduc filed motions for further findings and to alter the judgment, which the court mostly denied, except for making limited additional findings.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the lower court's decision on the classification of the real property, agreeing that Bolduc did not meet his burden to prove that the appreciation was solely due to market forces. The court also upheld the child support order, finding no error in the calculation or the decision not to order Getchius to pay $1,800 for uninsured medical expenses. However, the court found that the attorney fee award was based on an affidavit that included fees unrelated to the divorce proceedings. The court vacated the attorney fee award and remanded for recalculation of the fees properly subject to an award in the divorce action. View "Bolduc v. Getchius" on Justia Law

Deangelo Deshawn Morgan was convicted in 2023 for the fatal shooting of Sabron Mosby and the aggravated assault of Donoven King. The crimes occurred on October 15, 2018, and Morgan was indicted along with Cleavanta Jerrideau and Glenn Darius Smith. Morgan's trial was severed due to a conflict of interest with his counsel, and Jerrideau and Smith were acquitted in their joint trial. Morgan was later found guilty by a jury and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for malice murder and an additional twenty years for aggravated assault.Morgan's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court after an evidentiary hearing. He appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence that the shooting was drug-related and implicating other potential suspects. He also claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for not properly arguing for the admission of this evidence and advising him not to testify.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence. The court held that the excluded evidence did not raise a reasonable inference of Morgan's innocence and was speculative. Additionally, the court found that Morgan's trial counsel's performance was not deficient, as the advice given was a strategic decision and not patently unreasonable.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding Morgan's convictions and sentences. View "MORGAN v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Alfred Jermaine Arnold was convicted of malice murder and other crimes related to the death of Loretta Goolsby, who was beaten to death between April 5 and 6, 2019. Arnold was indicted on multiple counts, including malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, arson, and theft by taking. The jury found him guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to life without parole for malice murder, plus additional concurrent sentences for arson and theft. Arnold's motion for a new trial was denied, leading to his appeal.Arnold argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts, his discovery rights were violated, his trial counsel was ineffective, and the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. The court found that the evidence, including cell phone location data, fingerprint evidence, and Arnold's inconsistent statements, was sufficient to support the convictions. The court also determined that there were no discovery violations, as Arnold had been provided with the expert's reports and was aware of the expert's conclusions.Regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the court concluded that Arnold's trial counsel's performance was not deficient, as they employed a reasonable strategy in handling the fingerprint evidence and cross-examining the expert. Additionally, Arnold failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by his counsel's performance, as he did not provide evidence that he would have accepted a plea offer or that an independent expert would have provided different testimony.The court also upheld the trial court's decision to admit the expert testimony under the Daubert standard and OCGA § 24-7-702 (b), finding that the expert was qualified and her methods were reliable. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Arnold's convictions. View "ARNOLD v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Ashton Denny, Jr. was convicted of malice murder and other charges after shooting his half-brother, Kevin Rowe, in the back, resulting in Rowe's death. The incident occurred on May 28, 2020, following an argument between Denny and Rowe at their family home in Conyers, Georgia. After the argument, Rowe and other family members left but returned later that night. Rowe stepped outside, followed by Denny, and shortly after, a gunshot was heard. Rowe was found injured, claiming Denny shot him, and Denny fled the scene in his Jeep. Denny was later apprehended when he returned to the scene.A Rockdale County grand jury indicted Denny on charges including malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. The jury found Denny guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to life in prison without parole for malice murder, with additional consecutive sentences for other charges. Denny's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case, where Denny argued ineffective assistance of counsel. He claimed his trial counsel failed to object to the admission of the murder weapon and other evidence from his Jeep, failed to object to the admission of a door with a bullet hole, and failed to tender a gunshot residue report. The court found that Denny's counsel was not deficient, as objections to the evidence would have been fruitless and the strategic decisions made by counsel were reasonable. The court also determined that Denny did not demonstrate a reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different had the gunshot residue report been admitted. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "DENNY v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Lucianna Nicole Fox was convicted of felony murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Leroy Midyette. On November 5, 2016, Fox encountered Midyette at a MARTA station. After a confrontation where Midyette did not move his cart out of the way, Fox hit the cart with her vehicle. Midyette followed her car and hit it, prompting Fox to exit her vehicle and shoot him, claiming she felt threatened. Fox was arrested and, during a police interview, stated she shot Midyette because she feared he had a weapon.Fox was indicted by a Fulton County grand jury and found guilty of felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. She was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole for felony murder and an additional five years for the firearm charge. Her motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. Fox argued that her trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a jury charge on the defense of accident and that the trial court committed plain error in its jury instructions. The court found that her counsel’s decision to focus solely on self-defense was not unreasonable and did not constitute ineffective assistance. The court also determined that any error in the jury instructions did not likely affect the trial's outcome. Consequently, the court affirmed Fox’s convictions, finding no cumulative error that denied her a fair trial. View "FOX v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

InfoDeli, LLC and Breht C. Burri (collectively, InfoDeli) brought a lawsuit against Western Robidoux, Inc. (WRI), Engage Mobile Solutions, LLC, and other defendants, including members of the Burri family and several companies. InfoDeli alleged copyright infringement, tortious interference, and violations of the Missouri Computer Tampering Act (MCTA). The dispute arose from a joint venture between InfoDeli and WRI, where InfoDeli created webstores for clients, and WRI provided printing and fulfillment services. The relationship deteriorated when WRI hired Engage to replace InfoDeli's webstores, leading to the lawsuit.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment to the defendants on the copyright infringement claim, dismissed or tried the remaining claims before a jury, which found in favor of the defendants. The district court also granted in part and denied in part InfoDeli's sanctions motion and awarded attorney’s fees and costs to the defendants. InfoDeli appealed these decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the copyright infringement claim, finding that InfoDeli failed to show that the nonliteral elements of its webstores were protected by copyright. The court also upheld the district court's denial of InfoDeli's motion for summary judgment on CEVA's conversion counterclaim, finding it was timely under Missouri law. Additionally, the court affirmed the district court's denial of InfoDeli's posttrial motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial as untimely.The Eighth Circuit also reviewed the sanctions imposed by the district court and found no abuse of discretion in the amount awarded or the decision not to impose additional sanctions under Rule 37(e). Finally, the court upheld the award of attorney’s fees and costs to the defendants, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its assessment. The court affirmed the district court's decisions in all respects. View "InfoDeli, LLC v. Western Robidoux, Inc." on Justia Law

An executive at a litigation funding company, Signal, resigned to start a competing business and sought legal advice from Signal’s outside counsel, Sugar Felsenthal Grais & Helsinger LLP. Signal sued the law firm and several of its attorneys, alleging legal malpractice, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud. The district court dismissed some claims and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the remaining claims. Signal appealed these rulings.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Signal’s breach of fiduciary duty claim and part of its fraud claim, allowing the legal malpractice, breach of contract, and fraudulent misrepresentation claims to proceed. The court also struck Signal’s request for punitive damages. During discovery, the court denied Signal’s motion to compel production of a memorandum prepared by one of the defendants. The district court later granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all remaining claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court agreed that Signal failed to establish proximate cause and damages for its legal malpractice and breach of contract claims. The court also found that Signal waived its challenge to the summary judgment ruling on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim by not adequately addressing it on appeal. Additionally, the court upheld the district court’s decision to deny Signal’s motion to compel production of the memorandum, as Signal did not demonstrate that the document influenced the witness’s testimony. The appellate court concluded that the district court’s dismissal of the fraudulent concealment theory was harmless error and denied Signal’s motion to certify a question to the Illinois Supreme Court as moot. View "Signal Funding, LLC v Sugar Felsenthal Grais & Helsinger LLP" on Justia Law

Bankers Standard Insurance Company (Bankers) filed a lawsuit against JTEC, Inc. (JTEC), a professional engineering firm, alleging that JTEC negligently designed a water mechanical system for a housing development in Jackson, Wyoming. The design flaw allegedly caused a water filter housing to fail, resulting in significant water damage to a home insured by Bankers. The design plans, which included the alleged defect, were revised multiple times, with the final set submitted on May 31, 2018.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and certified a question to the Wyoming Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-107. The district court had granted summary judgment in favor of JTEC, determining that the statute of limitations barred Bankers' claim. The district court concluded that the relevant date for the statute of limitations was May 31, 2018, the last day JTEC provided professional services.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the certified question to determine when a professional’s act, error, or omission occurred under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-107. The Court held that the absence of contractual privity is not relevant in determining when the statute of limitations attaches in a tort action. The statute of limitations attaches to the design that was the legal cause of the alleged injuries, meaning the act, error, or omission that was a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiffs’ injuries.The Court concluded that the statute of limitations in § 1-3-107 attaches to the design that was used by the plumber to install the water entry detail at the Grossmans’ residence. However, the Court could not determine which set of engineering plans were used based on the facts presented. Therefore, the case was remanded for further proceedings to establish which design was the legal cause of the alleged injuries. View "Bankers Standard Insurance Company v. JTEC, Inc." on Justia Law

AMTAX Holdings 227, LLC ("AMTAX") filed a lawsuit against CohnReznick LLP ("CohnReznick") in federal court, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The dispute arose from CohnReznick's calculation of a purchase price for a property under a right of first refusal agreement, which AMTAX claimed excluded exit taxes required by Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. AMTAX argued that this exclusion violated the agreement and federal law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed AMTAX's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court applied the Grable-Gunn test to determine whether the state-law claims presented a substantial federal issue that would warrant federal jurisdiction. The district court concluded that AMTAX's claims did not meet the criteria for federal question jurisdiction, as they did not necessarily raise a substantial federal issue and allowing federal jurisdiction would disrupt the federal-state balance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court's decision de novo. The appellate court agreed with the lower court's application of the Grable-Gunn test, finding that AMTAX's claims were primarily based on contract interpretation rather than federal tax law. The court held that the federal issue was not substantial enough to warrant federal jurisdiction and that exercising jurisdiction would disrupt the balance of state and federal judicial responsibilities. Consequently, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "AMTAX Holdings 227, LLC v. CohnReznick LLP" on Justia Law