Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The case centers on Orlando González Tomasini, who filed civil rights and tort claims against the United States Postal Service, his former employer, alleging that psychological and medical conditions prevented him from working. His then-wife, Juliette Irizarry-Miranda, was initially a co-plaintiff but eventually became a defense witness after a contentious divorce and ongoing custody dispute over their son. On the eve of trial, the Postal Service accused González of witness tampering, specifically of seeking to dissuade Irizarry from testifying by conditioning custody concessions on her refusal to take the stand. Irizarry recorded part of a phone call between them, and the Postal Service submitted this as evidence.Prior to the current appeal, the case was heard in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, where a magistrate judge presided by consent of the parties. The magistrate judge held a three-day evidentiary hearing to address the witness tampering allegations. After hearing testimony from González, Irizarry, and a social worker, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that González had engaged in witness tampering. As a sanction for this fraud on the court, the magistrate judge dismissed González’s case.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court's decisions. The First Circuit affirmed the district court in all respects, holding that the evidentiary hearing was appropriately ordered, the finding of witness tampering was not clearly erroneous, and the sanction of dismissal was within the court’s discretion. The appellate court found that González’s conduct constituted a fraud on the court, justifying dismissal, especially given the egregiousness of the witness tampering and its potential impact on the integrity of judicial proceedings. Judgment was affirmed for the Postal Service. View "Gonzalez Tomasini v. Steiner" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who provided subadvisory investment services and loaned $1.5 million to FolioMetrix (personally guaranteed by two individuals), later engaged with defendants involved in a proposed merger of investment firms. Plaintiffs alleged that during merger negotiations, defendant Putnam promised to relieve the original borrowers of their obligations and personally assume the debt. Subsequent communications referenced intentions to transfer the loan liability to the new entity, but when plaintiffs sought a formal promissory note, defendants refused. Ultimately, defendants did not repay any portion of the loan.Plaintiffs filed suit in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco in March 2019, alleging breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. At trial, the central dispute was whether defendants had agreed to assume the loan obligations under the promissory note. Plaintiffs argued that the agreement was formed through emails and conduct, while defendants denied any assumption of liability. The jury found in favor of defendants, determining no contract was formed and no promise was made to repay the loans. Following trial, the court awarded defendants attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717, based on a fee provision in the original promissory note, after reducing the requested amount.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, addressed several issues. It ruled that the automatic bankruptcy stay did not preclude resolution of the appeal because the debtor (NAI) was the plaintiff rather than a defendant. The court rejected plaintiffs’ claims of error regarding jury instructions on contract formation, finding insufficient argument and no prejudice. It affirmed the attorney fee award, concluding the action was “on the contract” containing the fee provision, and held the fee amount was within the trial court’s discretion. The judgment and fee order were affirmed. View "Navellier v. Putnam" on Justia Law

In this case, the central issue arose during a countervailing duty investigation into phosphate fertilizers imported from Morocco and Russia. The International Trade Commission (Commission) collected information through questionnaires sent to various parties, including domestic and foreign producers. The Commission’s longstanding practice was to automatically designate all questionnaire responses as confidential, regardless of whether the submitting party requested confidentiality or whether the information would qualify for such treatment under the relevant statute. This led to heavy redactions in the administrative record when the investigation was challenged in court.A Moroccan producer, OCP S.A., sought review of the Commission’s injury determination in the United States Court of International Trade (CIT). The CIT initially remanded the injury determination due to insufficient evidentiary support. When the remand record again included substantial redactions, the CIT held a hearing to scrutinize the Commission’s confidentiality designations. After reviewing arguments from the Commission and affected parties, the CIT concluded that the Commission’s practice of automatically treating all questionnaire responses as confidential was unauthorized by law. The CIT found that much of the redacted information was either publicly available, generalized, or outdated, and thus not entitled to confidential treatment, with only a small portion warranting protection.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the CIT’s Confidentiality Opinion and Order. The Federal Circuit held that the governing statute does not abrogate the common law right of public access to judicial records and that the Commission’s blanket confidentiality rule conflicts with statutory requirements, which demand public disclosure of non-confidential information and proper justification for confidentiality. The Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT’s order that required the Commission to comply with statutory standards for confidentiality and to cease automatic confidential designation of questionnaire responses. View "In re United States" on Justia Law

In a dispute concerning antidumping and countervailing duties on mattresses imported from several countries, the U.S. International Trade Commission determined that domestic industry suffered material injury from imports sold at less than fair value and from subsidized imports. The Commission treated certain information submitted in response to its questionnaires as confidential. After the Court of International Trade issued a public opinion sustaining the Commission’s injury determination, it did not redact information the Commission had deemed confidential. The Commission requested retraction of the public opinion and sought redactions for specific company names and numerical data, arguing these deserved confidential treatment.The parties jointly moved for redaction, relying on the Commission’s practice of treating questionnaire data as confidential and citing statutory provisions. The Court of International Trade denied the motion, reasoning that the information was either publicly available or not linked to specific entities, and that some claims of confidentiality had been waived due to procedural oversight. The court also emphasized the common law right of access and transparency, but did not specifically address the statutory authority for disclosure.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the denial of the joint motion. The court found the case moot because the allegedly confidential information had already been publicly disclosed more than two years earlier, rendering any relief unavailable. The Federal Circuit held that the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to mootness did not apply, as the companion case decided that day resolved the same confidentiality issues. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. View "In re United States" on Justia Law

Several newly elected members joined a school district’s board of education in late 2021. Their priority was to make Merit Academy a charter school within the district. After previous unsuccessful attempts, the board moved forward with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to streamline the process. The agenda for the January 26, 2022, meeting where the MOU was discussed did not clearly indicate this topic, being labeled only as "BOARD HOUSEKEEPING." The board approved the MOU at this meeting. Subsequent meetings in February and April further addressed the MOU, with the April meeting involving a detailed discussion and statements from each board member.After the January meeting, a community member, Erin O’Connell, filed suit alleging a violation of Colorado’s Open Meetings Law (COML) due to insufficient public notice. The District Court initially granted an injunction requiring the board to provide clearer agendas. Later, upon summary judgment, the District Court found that the board cured the COML violation at the April meeting, which was properly noticed and involved substantive reconsideration. The court held O’Connell was not a prevailing party and denied her request for attorney fees.On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed most of the district court’s rulings. It upheld the “cure doctrine,” allowing public bodies to remedy prior open meetings violations by holding a subsequent compliant meeting, provided it is not a mere “rubber stamp.” The Court of Appeals also found that the doctrine does not distinguish between intentional and unintentional violations and that the April meeting cured the earlier violation. It denied O’Connell costs and attorney fees.The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed that the cure doctrine is consistent with the COML and longstanding precedent, and applies regardless of the violation’s intent. However, it reversed regarding attorney fees, holding that because O’Connell proved a violation that was not cured until after suit was filed, she is the prevailing party and entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees. The case was remanded for determination and award of such fees. View "O'Connell v. Woodland Park Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

The dispute centers on an attorney’s contingency fee agreement concerning legal representation for heirs of an Alaska Native allotment. After the attorney successfully represented the heirs in a federal lawsuit against the government for mismanagement of oil and gas leases, a fee dispute arose. The attorney sued one heir in federal court, claiming unpaid fees under the agreement. That heir moved to compel arbitration of the fee dispute pursuant to Alaska Bar Rules, and the federal court stayed the litigation pending arbitration.An Alaska Bar Association arbitration panel was convened. Bar Counsel advised the panel to limit its review to whether the amount of the attorney’s fee was reasonable, excluding issues of enforceability of the agreement, such as claims of duress or illegality under federal Indian law. The panel accepted this narrowed scope and ultimately found the attorney’s fee reasonable, declining to address other challenges. The panel also chose not to refer any ethical concerns to Bar Counsel for disciplinary review.The heir petitioned the Alaska Superior Court (Second Judicial District, Utqiaġvik) to vacate the arbitration award, arguing the panel exceeded its authority, was not impartial, and that the fee agreement was unenforceable. The superior court confirmed the arbitration panel’s decision, finding the panel’s scope limitation a reasonably possible interpretation of its authority under the Bar Rules. The court also awarded the attorney enhanced attorney’s fees for costs incurred in the post-arbitration proceedings, citing Alaska Civil Rule 82.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court’s decision. The court held that a fee arbitration panel’s decision to narrow its review to the reasonableness of a fee is proper if it is a reasonably possible interpretation of the panel’s authority. Additionally, it held that attorney’s fees may be awarded under Civil Rule 82 for post-arbitration proceedings governed by the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act. View "Koponen v. Romanov" on Justia Law

A member of the governing board of a public water district was the subject of internal investigations after allegations of misconduct by district staff, as well as allegations made by that board member against staff. Two lengthy confidential reports, prepared by outside counsel, documented the results of these investigations. The board member was permitted to review, but not remove, the reports from a secure location at the district’s offices. Contrary to these restrictions, the board member took the reports without permission, later making extensive annotations on them. Repeated requests for their return were unsuccessful, leading to her censure by the board.The Santa Clara County Superior Court, upon the district's application under California’s claim and delivery law, granted a writ of possession and a turnover order directing the board member to return the reports. The board member stayed enforcement by posting a counterbond as allowed by statute. While the turnover order was stayed, the district sought a preliminary injunction under the general injunction statutes, again seeking return of the reports. After a hearing, the Superior Court granted a mandatory preliminary injunction requiring turnover of the reports, permitting the board member to redact her handwritten notes.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the appeal from the order granting the preliminary injunction. The court held that the claim and delivery statutory scheme does not preclude a party from seeking injunctive relief for the recovery of personal property, even after a writ of possession has been issued and stayed by a counterbond. The appellate court further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a likelihood of the district’s success on its conversion claim and in concluding that the balance of harms favored the district. The order granting the preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. v. Eisenberg" on Justia Law

A stockholder derivative suit was filed alleging that Tesla’s non-employee directors, with the approval of Elon Musk, breached their fiduciary duties by granting themselves excessive stock option compensation between 2017 and 2020. After discovery and mediation, the parties reached a settlement. Under its terms, the directors agreed to return to Tesla a mix of cash, stock, and unexercised stock options, and to forgo future compensation for certain years. The settlement also included various corporate governance reforms.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware approved the settlement, rejecting an objector’s arguments regarding the fairness and structure of director contributions and the binding nature of future stockholder approval votes for director compensation. The court valued the benefit to Tesla using the intrinsic value (“in the money” value) of the returned options, along with returned cash and stock, and awarded attorneys’ fees as a percentage of the calculated benefit. Tesla objected to the fee award, arguing that the value of the returned options to the company was far less than their intrinsic value and should instead be measured by the grant date fair value (GDFV), which reflects the accounting benefit to Tesla.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the approval of the settlement but reversed the method used to calculate the attorneys’ fee award. It held that the intrinsic value of the cancelled options should not have been included in determining the monetary benefit to Tesla for purposes of a common fund fee calculation. The Court concluded that, in derivative litigation, unless an investor-level benefit falls within a recognized exception, the benefit to the corporation is controlling. The Supreme Court modified the fee award to reflect only the actual corporate benefit and remanded for any further disputes regarding fees. View "IN RE TESLA, INC. DIRECTOR COMPENSATION STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION" on Justia Law

A group of individuals with beneficial interests in Indian trust lands on the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota challenged the continued operation of an oil pipeline by Andeavor Logistics and related entities after the expiration of a federally granted right-of-way in 2013. Despite the expiration, Andeavor continued to operate the pipeline while negotiating for renewals with both the tribal government and individual landowners, but was unable to secure agreements with all landowners. The plaintiffs, known as the Allottees, alleged ongoing trespass, breach of the expired easement agreement, and unjust enrichment, seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, and removal of the pipeline.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota twice dismissed the Allottees’ case, first for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, a decision reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in a prior appeal (Chase I), which instructed a stay for further agency action. After further BIA proceedings and related litigation (including the Tesoro case), the district court again dismissed all of the Allottees’ claims with prejudice, finding no individual federal common law cause of action for trespass, breach of contract, or unjust enrichment, and denied their motion to intervene in the Tesoro case, concluding the United States adequately represented their interests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Allottees’ claims for trespass, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, holding that individual Indian allottees with only equitable interests in land held in trust by the United States lack standing to bring these claims under federal common law. The court also affirmed denial of intervention in the Tesoro litigation. However, the Eighth Circuit remanded for further consideration of whether consolidation of the two related cases is appropriate under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. View "Chase v. Andeavor Logistics, L.P." on Justia Law

A woman who had resided at an apartment complex in 2021 was injured when a bullet, fired from outside her apartment, struck her. She filed a pro se complaint with the Montgomery Circuit Court before the expiration of the statute of limitations, seeking to hold the apartment management responsible for her injuries on the basis that tenants were supposed to have 24-hour security due to increasing crime. The complaint, in the form of a letter, did not explicitly name a defendant or assert specific legal claims, but accompanying documents identified Hubbard Properties as the defendant and provided an address for service. However, she did not include summonses or provide instructions regarding service of process.No action was taken in the case until a status conference was held nearly two years later. Several months after that, and after the limitations period had expired, the plaintiff amended her complaint with the assistance of counsel, formally naming both Stonebridge and Hubbard Properties as defendants and asserting claims of negligence, wantonness, and failure to provide safe premises. At that time, she also included summonses and requested service by certified mail, and both defendants were served after the limitations period expired. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations because the plaintiff had not made a bona fide attempt to have the original complaint immediately served. The Montgomery Circuit Court denied the motions to dismiss without explanation.The Supreme Court of Alabama granted the defendants' petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that, although the complaint was filed before the statute of limitations expired, the plaintiff did not have the bona fide intent to have it immediately served, as objectively required for timely commencement of an action under Alabama law. Because of this, and because service occurred after the limitations period, the court directed the circuit court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. View "Ex parte Stonebridge, LLC" on Justia Law