Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Dr. Stephen D. Behlmer sought declaratory relief to establish his right to access his property in the Scratchgravel Hills via a road that crosses various parcels owned by multiple property owners within the Treasure Canyon Estates subdivision. Behlmer's property is surrounded by land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and is accessible by traveling through Treasure Canyon Drive, which runs through the Landowners' properties. Behlmer has a lease from the United States to access his property via BLM land, effective until 2037.The First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, dismissed Behlmer's petition for failure to join the United States as a required party, as the Landowners argued that the petition would prejudice federal interests. Behlmer amended his petition to clarify that he only sought a declaration of his rights relative to the portion of Treasure Canyon Drive traversing the Landowners' private property, not any BLM land. Despite this, the District Court granted the Landowners' motion to dismiss under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7).The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and reversed the District Court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the United States was not a required party under Rule 19 because its absence would not frustrate complete relief to the parties nor prejudice the United States' interests. The court determined that Behlmer's petition pertained only to the Landowners' interests and did not affect any adjacent property holders, including the United States. Therefore, the District Court abused its discretion in dismissing Behlmer's petition for failure to join a required party. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Behlmer v. Crum" on Justia Law

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (Philadelphia), a Pennsylvania-based insurer, brought claims of malpractice, indemnity, and contribution against Martin O’Leary, Kimberly Forrester, and the Sedgwick LLP Liquidating Trust (Sedgwick Defendants). The Sedgwick Defendants, former employees of the now-bankrupt Sedgwick LLP, had provided legal services to Philadelphia. The claims arose from a Montana class action lawsuit involving Gateway Hospitality, Inc. (Gateway), which Philadelphia had insured. Sedgwick advised Philadelphia to deny coverage to Gateway, leading to a settlement where Gateway paid approximately four million dollars to class members.The Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula County granted the Sedgwick Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. The court found that Philadelphia failed to establish that the Sedgwick Defendants had sufficient contacts with Montana to warrant jurisdiction. Philadelphia appealed this decision, arguing that the Sedgwick Defendants' actions related to the Montana lawsuit should subject them to Montana's jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The court held that the Sedgwick Defendants did not have sufficient contacts with Montana to establish personal jurisdiction. The Sedgwick Defendants' actions, including providing legal advice and sending a denial letter from California to Ohio, did not constitute transacting business or committing a tort in Montana. The court concluded that the Sedgwick Defendants' conduct did not create a substantial connection with Montana, and thus, the exercise of personal jurisdiction was not appropriate. View "Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v O'Leary" on Justia Law

Boris Bergus and Agustin Florian, both doctors, were colleagues and later co-investors in a company managed by Florian's brother-in-law, Edgardo Jose Antonio Castro Baca. Bergus invested in the company in 2012 and 2014, purchasing stock. Years later, after their relationship deteriorated, Bergus sued Florian, alleging that Florian had omitted material information about the investments, violating the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act (MUSA). The trial featured testimony from Bergus, Florian, and Baca. The district court precluded Florian from cross-examining Bergus about a 2013 state medical board finding that Bergus had misrepresented his medical credentials. The jury found in favor of Bergus regarding the 2012 investment but not the 2014 investment.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in favor of Bergus for the 2012 investment, awarding him $125,000 plus interest, totaling $202,506.85, and additional attorney's fees and costs, bringing the total judgment to $751,234.86. The court dismissed Florian's counterclaim for abuse of process, suggesting it be litigated in state court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed several issues, including the district court's limitation on Florian's cross-examination of Bergus. The appellate court found that the district court abused its discretion by precluding cross-examination about Bergus's misrepresentations of his medical credentials, which were probative of his character for truthfulness. The court concluded that this error was not harmless, as the case hinged on the credibility of the witnesses.The First Circuit vacated the judgment regarding the 2012 investment and remanded for a new trial on that issue. The jury's verdict on the 2014 investment remained intact. The appellate court did not address Florian's other arguments due to the need for a new trial. View "Bergus v. Florian" on Justia Law

An attorney, Brian Steel, was found in contempt of court for refusing to disclose how he learned about an ex parte hearing involving a witness, the witness's counsel, and prosecutors in a case where Steel represented a defendant. The trial judge, Judge Glanville, repeatedly asked Steel to reveal his source, but Steel claimed the information was protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Judge Glanville held Steel in contempt and ordered him into custody, although Steel was later allowed to return to the courtroom.The Fulton County Superior Court initially found Steel in contempt and ordered him to be taken into custody. Steel argued that the information was privileged and that due process required Judge Glanville to recuse himself from the contempt proceedings. Despite these arguments, Judge Glanville sentenced Steel to 20 days in jail to be served on weekends and denied him a supersedeas bond.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and determined that due process required Judge Glanville to recuse himself from the contempt proceedings. The court held that because the punishment was delayed and the alleged disobedience was directed toward the judge, a different judge should have presided over the contempt hearing. The court reversed the judgment of contempt imposed by the trial court. View "STEEL v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, who operate restaurants under franchise agreements, filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition based on advice from their legal counsel. This led to the franchisor terminating the franchise agreements. The plaintiffs then sued their lawyers and law firms for legal malpractice and breach of written contracts for legal services, alleging that the lawyers' advice constituted malpractice. The defendants moved to dismiss both claims, arguing they were barred by a four-year statute of limitation under OCGA § 9-3-25.The trial court dismissed the legal-malpractice claims but denied the motion to dismiss the breach-of-contract claims. Later, it granted summary judgment for a subset of defendants, ruling that the breach-of-contract claims were also barred by the four-year statute of limitation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the legal-malpractice claims and concluded that the breach-of-contract claims were duplicative and should be dismissed as well.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case to determine which statute of limitation applies to breach-of-contract-for-legal-services claims and whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing these claims as duplicative. The Supreme Court concluded that such claims could be governed by either a six-year statute of limitation under OCGA § 9-3-24 or a four-year statute under OCGA § 9-3-25, depending on whether the breach arose directly from a written contract. The Court also held that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the breach-of-contract claims as duplicative without applying the proper motion-to-dismiss standard.The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, emphasizing that plaintiffs can pursue alternative theories of relief based on the same conduct. View "TITSHAW v. GEER" on Justia Law

In November 2014, the plaintiff purchased a recreational vehicle (RV) from a dealership, with the defendant bank financing the purchase. The sales contract inaccurately reflected the downpayment as $19,100 in cash instead of $1,000 in cash and $18,100 in trade-in value. The plaintiff later discovered issues with the RV and filed a lawsuit in February 2017, alleging violations of the Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA) due to the incorrect downpayment disclosure.The Superior Court of Fresno County reviewed the case and concluded that the four-year statute of limitations for written contracts applied, rather than the one-year statute for statutory penalties. The court granted summary adjudication in favor of the plaintiff against the dealership for violating the ASFA, and the dealership's liability was extended to the bank under the Federal Trade Commission’s holder rule. The court entered judgment requiring the bank to accept the return of the RV and pay the plaintiff $42,263.64.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and determined that the rescission and restitution remedy under the ASFA is a penalty. The court concluded that the one-year statute of limitations for actions upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture applied. The court noted that the ASFA imposes strict liability without regard to actual damages or fault, and the legislative history indicated the remedy was intended as a penalty. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Pompey v. Bank of Stockton" on Justia Law

The case involves Western Robidoux, Inc. (WRI), which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy while involved in federal litigation. Attorney Daniel Blegen, initially representing WRI and its controlling family members, moved to Spencer Fane LLP. The Chapter 7 Trustee, Jill Olsen, sought to employ Spencer Fane as special counsel for ongoing appeals in the federal litigation. Appellants TooBaRoo, LLC and InfoDeli, LLC, controlled by Breht Burri, opposed this, citing potential conflicts of interest and disproportionate legal fees.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri approved the employment of Spencer Fane as special counsel, finding no actual conflicts of interest and emphasizing procedural safeguards for potential future conflicts. The court noted Spencer Fane's expertise and cost-effectiveness. Appellants appealed this decision, arguing that the employment order was improper due to adverse interests and fee concerns.The United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The panel first examined its jurisdiction, determining whether the bankruptcy court's order was final under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) or reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3). The panel concluded that the order was not final, as the bankruptcy court retained ongoing responsibilities regarding Spencer Fane's employment and fee applications. Additionally, the panel found that delaying review would not prevent effective relief for the appellants, and a later reversal would not necessitate recommencement of the entire proceeding.The panel also declined to treat the appeal as an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3), agreeing with both parties that the criteria for such review were not met. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "TooBaRoo, LLC v. Olsen" on Justia Law

In November 2023, X Corp. filed a lawsuit against Media Matters, Inc., Eric Hananoki, and Angelo Carusone, alleging interference with X Corp.'s contracts, business disparagement, and interference with prospective economic advantage. X Corp. claimed that Media Matters manipulated images to portray X Corp. as a platform dominated by neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism, which alienated advertisers, publishers, and users. During discovery, X Corp. requested Media Matters to produce documents identifying its donors and communications with them. Media Matters resisted, citing First Amendment concerns.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas initially ordered Media Matters to log documents responsive to X Corp.'s requests as privileged. However, Media Matters did not comply, arguing that the requests overlapped with other discovery requests. The district court then granted X Corp.'s motion to compel production, ruling that Media Matters had waived any First Amendment privilege by not searching for or logging the documents. Media Matters appealed the order and sought a stay pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that it had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, as the discovery order involved important First Amendment issues that were separate from the merits of the case and would be effectively unreviewable on appeal. The court determined that Media Matters was likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal because the discovery requests were not proportional to the needs of the case and posed a significant burden on Media Matters and its donors. Consequently, the court granted Media Matters's motion for a stay pending appeal, staying the district court's order compelling production. View "X Corp v. Media Matters" on Justia Law

Ultra Deep Picasso Pte. Limited (Ultra Deep) is a contractor specializing in undersea vessel operations for marine construction. Dynamic Industries Saudi Arabia Ltd. (Dynamic) subcontracted Ultra Deep for a project related to a contract with Saudi Aramco. Ultra Deep completed work worth over ten million dollars but alleged that Dynamic failed to pay, breaching their agreement. Ultra Deep filed a complaint in the Southern District of Texas, seeking breach of contract damages and a maritime attachment and garnishment of Dynamic’s funds allegedly held by Riyad Bank.The district court granted Ultra Deep an ex parte order for attachment of Dynamic’s assets at Riyad Bank. Dynamic responded with motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and to compel arbitration, which were denied. Dynamic and Riyad Bank then moved to vacate the attachment order, arguing that Ultra Deep failed to show Dynamic had property in the Southern District of Texas. The magistrate judge held a hearing and found that Ultra Deep did not present evidence that Dynamic’s property was within the district. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, vacated the attachment order, and dismissed the case with prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that for a valid Rule B attachment, the property must be found within the district. It concluded that a bank account is located where its funds can be withdrawn. Since Ultra Deep failed to show that Dynamic’s property was within the Southern District of Texas, the court affirmed the district court’s decision to vacate the attachment order and dismiss the case. View "Ultra Deep Picasso v. Dynamic Industries Saudi Arabia Ltd." on Justia Law

The Government of Puerto Rico sued several pharmaceutical benefit managers (PBMs) and pharmaceutical manufacturers in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Court of First Instance. The Commonwealth alleged that the PBMs, including Express Scripts and Caremark, schemed to unlawfully inflate insulin prices through rebate negotiations and price setting. The PBMs removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), arguing that they acted under federal authority in negotiating rebates and setting drug prices, and that the lawsuit related to their federal service.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico remanded the case back to the Court of First Instance. The district court found that the Commonwealth's disclaimer, which stated that it was not seeking relief related to any federal program or contract, effectively excluded any claims upon which the PBMs could base removal under § 1442(a)(1). The district court concluded that the PBMs could not claim they acted under federal authority for their non-federal PBM services and that dividing the work done for federal and non-federal clients was possible.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the disclaimer did not prevent removal because Caremark's rebate negotiations for federal and non-federal clients were indivisible. The court found that Caremark acted under federal authority when negotiating rebates for FEHBA plans and possessed a colorable federal defense under FEHBA's express preemption provision. The court concluded that the disclaimer did not eliminate the possibility that the Commonwealth would recover for Caremark's official acts, thus justifying removal under § 1442(a)(1). The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to return it to federal court. View "Government of Puerto Rico v. Express Scripts, Inc." on Justia Law