Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Aleksia Lindsay filed an amended class action complaint against Patenaude & Felix, APC, and Transworld Systems Inc., alleging unfair debt collection practices. Lindsay had defaulted on $60,000 in student loans, and after receiving incomplete and inaccurate information from Transworld, Patenaude initiated two debt collection lawsuits against her. Lindsay later discovered that both entities had a history of unethical collection practices, leading to actions by various regulatory bodies. After the lawsuits against her were dismissed, Lindsay received another demand for payment and subsequently filed the class action complaint.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County struck Lindsay's complaint, relying on the anti-SLAPP law, and ruled that the public interest exception did not apply. Lindsay argued that the trial court erred in this decision. The trial court concluded that although the three conditions of the public interest exception were met, the action was not brought solely in the public interest because Lindsay sought damages.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court held that the action was brought solely in the public interest or on behalf of the general public, as the relief sought by Lindsay was identical to that sought for the plaintiff class. The court also found that seeking damages did not preclude the application of the public interest exception. The court concluded that the action met all three conditions of the public interest exception: it did not seek greater or different relief, it would enforce an important right affecting the public interest and confer a significant benefit, and private enforcement was necessary and placed a disproportionate financial burden on Lindsay.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order, exempting Lindsay's action from the anti-SLAPP law and entitling her to costs on appeal. View "Lindsay v. Patenaude & Felix" on Justia Law

Matt Roane was involved in litigation with the Archuleta County Board of Commissioners when he submitted a Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request to Archuleta County Clerk and Recorder, Kristy Archuleta, seeking a recording of a recent Board meeting. Archuleta denied the request, claiming it circumvented the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. Roane had not sought any records through discovery in his civil action against the Board. Roane then sued Archuleta, alleging a violation of CORA.The district court granted Roane's motion to show cause, rejecting Archuleta's argument that the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure prohibited Roane from obtaining evidence outside of discovery procedures. The court ordered Archuleta to produce the recording. Archuleta appealed, arguing that the district court allowed Roane to bypass discovery rules. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, holding that CORA allows litigants to inspect public records even if they are relevant to pending litigation.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and held that a litigant may obtain records under CORA even if those records are relevant to pending litigation and the litigant has not made document requests under the Rules of Civil Procedure. The court emphasized that CORA and the Rules of Civil Procedure are distinct legal regimes and that CORA does not limit inspection rights simply because the requester is involved in litigation with the public entity. The court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "Archuleta v. Roane" on Justia Law

An inmate at the Trumbull Correctional Institution (TCI) submitted 17 public-records requests to various TCI departments and employees in August 2023. The requests included documents such as the current bank statement for TCI’s industrial and entertainment fund, the recreation music-room schedule, TCI’s list of approved vendors, and body-camera footage from a specific corrections officer. The inmate claimed that all his requests were initially denied and sought a writ of mandamus to compel the production of the records, as well as statutory damages and reimbursement for postage and photocopying.The case was reviewed by the Supreme Court of Ohio. The court found that many of the inmate’s requests had been rendered moot because the requested documents were provided to him after he filed his complaint. The court also determined that the inmate did not meet his burden of proof for some requests, as he failed to show that he properly requested the records from the appropriate public office or person responsible for public records. Additionally, the court found that the delay in responding to the inmate’s requests was not unreasonable given the number of requests.The Supreme Court of Ohio denied the inmate’s request for a writ of mandamus, statutory damages, and reimbursement for expenses. The court also denied the inmate’s motion to compel the clerk to accept his untimely response and the respondents’ motion for sanctions. The court concluded that there was no evidence that the inmate acted falsely or fraudulently in bringing the action. View "State ex rel. Berry v. Booth" on Justia Law

An inmate at the Pickaway Correctional Institution, Trevor J. Teagarden, requested various public records from prison staff between June and August 2023. These requests included medical protocols, recreation schedules, policy indexes, and a sign-in sheet for LexisNexis computer terminals. The prison staff responded by directing him to where some of the requested documents were posted or available for review in the library, and denied access to the sign-in sheet, stating it was library property.Teagarden filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in December 2023, seeking to compel the prison staff to provide the requested records, along with statutory damages and court costs. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case after denying the respondents' motion to dismiss and ordering them to file an answer.The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Teagarden's requests for the recreation schedules and medical protocols were either not directed to the proper records custodian or were too vague. However, the court found that the sign-in sheet for the LexisNexis computer terminals was a public record maintained by the library staff, and their refusal to provide it violated the Public Records Act. Consequently, the court granted a writ of mandamus ordering the prison staff to provide Teagarden with the sign-in sheet for August 24 and 25, 2023.The court awarded Teagarden $1,000 in statutory damages for the failure to provide the sign-in sheet but denied his request for court costs due to his affidavit of indigency. The court denied the writ for the other records requested, as the responses from the prison staff were deemed appropriate under the circumstances. View "State ex rel. Teagarden v. Igwe" on Justia Law

The case involves the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) changing its air-quality standard for ozone under the Clean Air Act, which required states to amend their state plans. The EPA issued guidance memoranda to assist states, suggesting specific modeling and a minimum threshold for interstate emissions. Kentucky proposed a plan based on this guidance, but the EPA delayed action on the plan for two years and then disapproved it using different modeling and a lower threshold than initially recommended. Kentucky petitioned the court to vacate the EPA's disapproval.The EPA's disapproval of Kentucky's plan was challenged in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The EPA sought to transfer the case to the D.C. Circuit, arguing that the disapproval was a nationally applicable final action. The Sixth Circuit denied the motion, stating that the EPA's disapproval was not nationally applicable and was based on Kentucky's unique facts. The court also found that the EPA's action violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by acting arbitrarily and inconsistently with its prior guidance.The Sixth Circuit held that the EPA's disapproval of Kentucky's plan was arbitrary and capricious. The court noted that the EPA failed to adequately explain its departure from prior guidance and did not consider Kentucky's reliance on the initial recommendations. The court vacated the EPA's disapproval of Kentucky's plan and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court emphasized the importance of consistency and the need for the EPA to justify its actions when changing its approach. View "Kentucky v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

The Wyoming Board of Land Commissioners (Board) manages state trust lands for the benefit of public schools. In Teton County, the Board issued temporary use permits to Basecamp Hospitality, LLC and Wilson Investments, LLC for commercial activities on state trust lands. Teton County challenged these permits, arguing they should be subject to local land use regulations. The district court dismissed Teton County's challenge, stating the county lacked standing for judicial review. Subsequently, Teton County issued abatement notices to the permit holders, which led the Board to seek declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming sovereign immunity from local regulations.The Teton County Board of County Commissioners (Teton County) filed a petition for review, which was dismissed by the Ninth Judicial District Court. The Board then filed for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in the First Judicial District, Laramie County, Wyoming. The district court issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Teton County's enforcement actions. Citizens for Responsible Use of State Lands (CRUSL), formed by local property owners, sought to intervene, claiming their interests were directly impacted by the use of the state trust lands.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case. CRUSL argued it had a significant protectable interest due to the proximity of its members' properties to the state trust lands. However, the court found CRUSL's interests were contingent on the outcome of the sovereign immunity issue and thus not significant protectable interests. Additionally, the court held that Teton County adequately represented CRUSL's interests, as both sought to enforce local regulations on state trust lands. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's denial of CRUSL's motion to intervene as a matter of right under Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). View "Citizens for Responsible Use of State Lands v. State" on Justia Law

Abram J. Harris, a pro se plaintiff, sued the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in the D.C. Superior Court, alleging fraud and abuse of process. Harris claimed that a female employee he hired, who also worked for FMCSA, turned the agency against him after their working relationship soured. The Superior Court dismissed the case sua sponte for failure to state a claim, and Harris appealed to the D.C. Court of Appeals. Subsequently, the DOT removed the case to federal court.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the case after removal. Harris did not object to the removal or seek remand to the Superior Court. The district court dismissed the case, concluding it lacked jurisdiction because Harris's claims fell outside the Federal Tort Claims Act’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity and because Harris had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Alternatively, the court held that Harris had failed to state a claim. Harris timely appealed the dismissal as to DOT but not as to Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephanie Johnson, whom he had added as a defendant.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a), a federal defendant may remove a case from state appellate court to federal district court. The court also determined that Harris forfeited any arguments regarding procedural defects in the removal process by not objecting in the district court or moving for remand. Additionally, Harris forfeited any arguments that the district court erred in dismissing his case for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim by failing to raise them in his briefs. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case. View "Harris v. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration" on Justia Law

Several homeowners sued an irrigation district, claiming that the district's refusal to remove over twenty-year-old charges from the tax rolls was an ultra vires act, violating the Tax Code's twenty-year limitations period. The district argued that the charges were Water Code assessments, not taxes, and thus not subject to the limitations period.The trial court granted the district officials' jurisdictional plea without permitting discovery, dismissing the homeowners' claims for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed in part, concluding that the pleadings did not support an ultra vires claim under the Tax Code because the homeowners had not sought a refund from the tax assessor and the district had clarified that the charges were assessments under the Water Code.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and determined that the homeowners had sufficiently pleaded facts to demonstrate the trial court's jurisdiction over their ultra vires claim. The court held that the homeowners' pleadings, viewed liberally, alleged that the charges were taxes, had been delinquent for more than twenty years, and that no related litigation was pending at the time of the request to remove the charges. The court concluded that these allegations were sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction and did not implicate the district's governmental immunity.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment regarding the Tax Code ultra vires claim and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Herrera v. Mata" on Justia Law

The Idaho State Board of Education approved a proposal for the University of Idaho to purchase the University of Phoenix for $550 million, funded by a $685 million bond. This decision followed three closed-door executive sessions. Idaho Attorney General Raúl R. Labrador filed a suit to void the sale, alleging violations of the Idaho Open Meetings Law, which mandates that public policy formation be conducted openly. The district court dismissed the suit, finding no violations.The district court ruled that the Board's actions during the executive sessions were lawful under the exception in Idaho Code section 74-206(1)(e), which allows closed meetings for preliminary negotiations involving trade or commerce when in competition with other states. The court interpreted "preliminary negotiations" to include all negotiations before contracting and applied a "reasonable belief" standard to determine if the Board believed it was in competition with another governing body.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its broad interpretation of "preliminary negotiations" and the application of the "reasonable belief" standard. The Supreme Court held that "preliminary negotiations" should be narrowly construed to mean a phase of negotiations before final negotiations, and the statute requires actual competition, not just a reasonable belief of competition. The court vacated the district court's summary judgment, its judgment following the bench trial, and the award of attorney fees and costs to the Board. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of Idaho Code section 74-206(1)(e). View "Labrador v. Board of Education" on Justia Law

Lake County sought reimbursement from the State of Montana for costs incurred in enforcing state criminal jurisdiction on the Flathead Indian Reservation under Public Law 280 (P.L. 280). The County argued that the State was obligated to cover these costs, citing financial strain and the diversion of resources from other services.The District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District dismissed Lake County’s claims for unfunded mandate and unjust enrichment, ruling that the statutes of limitations had expired. The court determined that the claims accrued in January 2017, when the County expressed its inability to continue bearing the financial burden of P.L. 280. The court also ruled that the continuing tort and equitable tolling doctrines did not apply to toll the statutes of limitations. The court denied the State’s motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment claim but later granted summary judgment in favor of the State, ruling that the State was not obligated to appropriate any specific amount to reimburse the County.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s rulings. It held that Lake County’s claims were justiciable but that the continuing tort doctrine did not apply because the County sought monetary damages, not abatement. The Court also ruled that the equitable tolling doctrine did not apply as the County did not pursue a legal remedy within the doctrine’s scope. Finally, the Court held that § 2-1-301(2), MCA, only required the State to reimburse the County to the extent funds were appropriated by the Legislature, which retained discretion over such appropriations. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the unfunded mandate and unjust enrichment claims and the summary judgment on the declaratory judgment claim. View "Lake County v. State" on Justia Law