Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A fatal accident occurred in 2016 when a bicyclist, Jonathan Tansavatdi, collided with a turning truck at an intersection in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The bicycle lane on Hawthorne Boulevard ended before the intersection, forcing cyclists to share the roadway. Jonathan’s mother, Betty Tansavatdi, sued the City, alleging that the intersection constituted a dangerous condition of public property and that the City failed to adequately warn of this danger.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially granted summary judgment for the City based on the affirmative defense of design immunity under Government Code section 830.6. The trial court found the City had established all elements of design immunity regarding the absence of a bicycle lane. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the finding of design immunity but remanded the case for consideration of the failure to warn claim. The California Supreme Court, in Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639, held that design immunity does not categorically preclude failure to warn claims and remanded the matter, leaving open whether design immunity applies if warnings were part of an approved design.Upon remand, the City renewed its motion for summary judgment, arguing that all warning signs and markings at the intersection were part of the 2009 approved design plans. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, held that when a public entity has provided some warning of a dangerous condition as part of an approved and reasonable design, complaints about the adequacy of that warning fall within the scope of design immunity. The court affirmed summary judgment for the City and upheld the award of expert fees, finding the City’s section 998 settlement offer valid. View "Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes" on Justia Law

A testamentary trust was created by Ruth Wilson for her daughter, Elizabeth Koeberer, before Wilson’s death in 2013. The trust, named with a misspelling of Koeberer’s surname, was initially managed by Koeberer’s brother, Edson Wilson, who later appointed Robert Weir as successor trustee. JPMorgan Chase Bank held the trust’s financial assets. Nearly a decade after Wilson’s death, Koeberer brought a federal lawsuit against Weir, Chase Bank, her siblings, and her former probate attorney, alleging negligence, violations of federal statutes, and abuse-of-process claims in relation to the trust’s administration.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed all federal claims against the defendants. It found that Koeberer’s claims under the Bank Secrecy Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and the NACHA operating rules were either untimely, lacked a private right of action, or were unsupported by the agreement between Koeberer and Chase Bank. The court also concluded that the economic-loss rule barred Koeberer’s negligence claim against Chase Bank and found no viable abuse-of-process claim against her siblings. The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims against Weir and Ryan Gordon, dismissing them as well.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo and affirmed. The appellate court held that there was no private right of action under the Bank Secrecy Act for the SAR filing requirement, Koeberer’s EFTA claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations, and the NACHA rules were not incorporated into her deposit account agreement. The court also upheld dismissal of the negligence and abuse-of-process claims, and found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims. View "Koeberer v. Weir" on Justia Law

Following the passage of Proposition 50, which revised congressional district maps in California, a community group in Riverside County alleged a discrepancy in the number of ballots counted versus ballots cast during the 2025 special election. Acting on the group’s report, the county sheriff’s department obtained search warrants from the Riverside County Superior Court and seized large quantities of ballots and election materials. The county registrar defended the official tally and explained the discrepancy at a public meeting. Despite the Attorney General’s request for a pause to review the investigation, the sheriff’s department advanced their search and began counting ballots, only halting after direct communication from the Attorney General.The Attorney General issued formal directives to the sheriff, instructing him to pause the investigation, preserve all seized materials, and provide case records for review. The sheriff initially did not respond, began counting ballots, then paused the count and secured the materials. Subsequent communications from the Attorney General reiterated these directives and requested records. After further seizures by the sheriff’s department, the Attorney General initiated litigation, seeking a writ of mandate in the California Court of Appeal, which denied relief on procedural grounds. The Attorney General then sought review in the Supreme Court of California.The Supreme Court of California held that the Attorney General, under the state Constitution and Government Code section 12560, possesses the authority to give binding directions to sheriffs regarding specific investigations when necessary to ensure uniform and adequate enforcement of state laws. The court concluded the directives issued in this case were within the Attorney General’s lawful authority and sufficiently specific. It granted writ relief, ordering the sheriff and department to comply with the Attorney General’s instructions to pause investigative actions, retain seized records (with certain exceptions), and provide requested materials. Each party was directed to bear its own costs. View "Bonta v. Bianco" on Justia Law

The dispute involved two sets of co-owners of a Kentucky limited liability company operating a pharmacy. In 2019, the Dotsons acquired a 50 percent ownership interest from the Ingrams, with a promissory note and security agreement (the “Ingram debt”), making the Dotsons and the Andersons equal owners. In 2023, the Andersons and the LLC filed suit against the Dotsons, who counterclaimed. In early 2024, the parties participated in a mediation and reached a settlement agreement, which was recorded on video during a Zoom call. The mediator recited the terms, including payment arrangements and asset/debt allocations, and the parties affirmed the terms verbally. Subsequently, disputes arose regarding the nature of the Ingram debt (whether corporate or personal), leading both sides to refuse to fulfill their respective payment obligations.The Rowan Circuit Court, after a hearing, found the settlement agreement valid, enforceable, and unambiguous. The court determined the Ingram debt was personal to the Dotsons and not assumed by the Andersons, and held that the agreement did not violate Kentucky’s Statute of Frauds. The court did not address the applicability of Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure 99.10. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed and concluded that the requirements of CR 99.10 were satisfied.On discretionary review, the Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals. It held that a video recording of an oral settlement agreement, where parties knowingly affirm the terms, constitutes a valid “electronic record” and “electronic signature” under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act and satisfies the Statute of Frauds and CR 99.10. The court also found the settlement terms unambiguous and complete, and that the parties mutually assented to them. Issues of alleged breach of contract were deemed premature and not addressed. View "DOTSON V. CIA DRUG, LLC" on Justia Law

Following significant property damage due to a rainstorm in January 2023, several local government entities in Merced County, including the City of Merced and a school district, filed suit against the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). They alleged that the CDFW’s restrictions on cleaning and maintaining waterways contributed to flooding that caused the damage. Subsequent to this initial complaint, other parties—including homeowners, businesses, and insurers—filed related actions against CDFW, the City, and the County. These cases were ultimately consolidated in Merced County Superior Court.After consolidation, CDFW became the sole nonresident defendant in the case. In late 2025, CDFW sought to transfer the venue out of Merced County, citing Code of Civil Procedure sections 394 and 397, which generally allow for venue changes to guard against local prejudice in actions involving local government plaintiffs and nonresident defendants. The plaintiffs opposed the motion, and the Superior Court of Merced County ruled that venue was proper in Merced County under Government Code section 955.3, which specifically governs actions brought by local agencies against the State of California. The court also found CDFW’s motion untimely.CDFW then petitioned the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, for a writ of mandate to overturn the trial court’s denial of the motion to transfer venue. The Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that Government Code section 955.3 expressly provides that such actions may be tried in the county where the local government plaintiff is situated, notwithstanding any other provision of law. The court concluded that section 955.3 supersedes section 394 and that the Attorney General’s ability to seek a venue change under section 397 is limited to a pre-answer motion, which was not made here. The stay previously issued was lifted, and costs were awarded to the real parties in interest. View "Dept. of Fish & Wildlife v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The case involved a personal injury claim filed by the plaintiff against the defendants in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The main issue was whether the action was "brought to trial" within the statutory period required by California law, which mandates dismissal if a civil case is not brought to trial within five years (plus a COVID-19 emergency extension). As the deadline approached, several panels of prospective jurors were assembled and sworn in by the trial court, and the court conducted hardship excusals. However, the parties did not begin their voir dire examination of the sworn juror panels before the deadline expired.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County dismissed the action with prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.360, concluding the matter was not "brought to trial" by the deadline. The trial court reasoned that jury selection had not sufficiently commenced because the parties had not yet started their voir dire examination of the juror panels. The plaintiff appealed this dismissal.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The appellate court held that, consistent with Stueve v. Nemer, a civil action is "brought to trial" when a panel of prospective jurors assembles in the courtroom for voir dire and is sworn in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 232, subdivision (a). The court determined that the action was timely "brought to trial" on the date the panels were sworn, regardless of whether the parties' examination of the jurors had begun. The court reversed the judgment of dismissal, finding it was error to dismiss the case since the statutory requirements were met when the jury panels were assembled and sworn before the deadline. The plaintiff was awarded costs on appeal. View "Wilson v. Johnson" on Justia Law

A police officer in Somerville, Massachusetts was terminated from his position following alleged misconduct connected to his use of an informant, which ultimately resulted in the informant attacking a third party. The officer did not initially disclose all relevant information during the investigation of the attack. After further internal investigation and public accusations, including statements made by city officials to the press, the officer was officially terminated. He challenged his termination by both pursuing arbitration under the police union’s collective bargaining agreement and by filing a civil suit, alleging his termination was retaliatory and violated his constitutional rights, as well as state law regarding interference with advantageous relations. While the lawsuit was pending, an arbitrator ordered his reinstatement but denied him back pay. Following this, the mayor placed the officer on paid administrative leave, which affected his ability to earn overtime and additional compensation.The case was first filed in Middlesex Superior Court and then removed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The district judge allowed the officer to seek damages at trial not only for the termination but also for being placed on paid leave after reinstatement, even though the officer never amended his complaint to include this post-arbitration event as a basis for liability. The district court permitted the jury to award damages for both the termination and the paid-leave decision, over the defendants’ repeated objections.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit concluded that the district court erred in allowing the jury to award damages based on the paid-leave decision. The appellate court held that, absent an amended complaint or the defendants’ consent, new factual bases for liability such as the paid-leave decision could not be considered at trial. The First Circuit reversed the damages awarded for the paid-leave decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "DiFronzo v. City of Somerville" on Justia Law

A tenured professor at the University of Arizona, concerned about adherence to an anti-discrimination constitutional amendment in university hiring, submitted a series of public records requests to the university. These requests sought data and documents related to survey results used in hiring, as well as information about appointment and selection processes for certain positions. The university partially complied, providing some records, redacting or withholding others, and denying access to an audio recording of a committee meeting, citing confidentiality. The university later destroyed the recording after offering the professor a chance to listen without copying, which he declined. Following repeated, unsuccessful requests, the professor’s attorney sent a demand letter, prompting the university to release additional records, though some remained withheld or redacted.The professor filed a Special Action Complaint in the Superior Court in Pima County against the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR), alleging wrongful denial of records and seeking damages and attorney fees. The Superior Court dismissed some counts as time-barred or for failure to state a claim, held a bench trial, and denied relief on remaining counts. The court found the university had eventually provided nearly all requested records and cured any prior abuse of discretion. It denied the professor’s request for attorney fees, reasoning that such fees could not be awarded if the public entity had complied before litigation commenced. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that destruction of requested records amounted to a denial, but the professor was not entitled to damages or fees absent a timely notice of claim and that the trial court’s review of withheld records should combine de novo and abuse-of-discretion standards.The Supreme Court of Arizona reversed, holding that courts must review de novo an agency’s determination of statutory exemptions and the withholding or redacting of specific documents. The Court also held that destruction of a record after a request constitutes denial of access under the Public Records Law. Finally, the Court determined that “substantially prevailed” for attorney fees includes the requester’s overall success throughout the dispute, not just post-litigation results. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "ABRAHAM v ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS" on Justia Law

The Commonwealth of Kentucky initiated a lawsuit against several pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and related entities, asserting that these firms contributed to the opioid crisis in Kentucky by conspiring with drug manufacturers to increase opioid supply. Kentucky alleged the PBMs negotiated with drug companies to give opioids preferred placement on formularies in exchange for rebates and fees, thus violating state consumer protection laws and creating a public nuisance. The PBMs served both federal and commercial clients, including federal workers under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act, TRICARE members, and Veterans Health Administration beneficiaries.Following removal of the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky by the PBMs under the federal officer removal statute (28 U.S.C. § 1442), Kentucky sought to remand the case to state court, arguing its complaint disclaimed liability for conduct undertaken at the direction of federal officers. The district court granted Kentucky’s motion to remand.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. Relying on its prior decision in Ohio ex rel. Yost v. Ascent Health Services, LLC, and similar decisions from other circuits, the Sixth Circuit determined the PBMs acted under federal officers when administering federal health benefits and that Kentucky’s claims related to conduct performed under federal supervision. The court found the PBMs had raised colorable federal defenses, including immunity and preemption under federal statutes governing federal health plans, TRICARE, ERISA, and Medicare Part D. The court concluded that Kentucky’s complaint targeted indivisible conduct relating to federal duties, so the PBMs met the requirements for removal under § 1442. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s remand order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Commw. of Ky. v. Express Scripts, Inc." on Justia Law

Two American entrepreneurs established three international corporations to invest in the casino and gaming industry in Laos. Two of these corporations became involved in disputes with the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), resulting in multiple arbitration proceedings in Singapore. The tribunals issued monetary awards in favor of Lao PDR against the two companies. Lao PDR tried to collect the awards through various means, including contacting corporate officers, filing suits abroad, and pursuing enforcement actions in U.S. courts. After an unsuccessful attempt in Idaho, Lao PDR filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands to enforce the arbitral awards, asserting that the entrepreneurs and their third corporation, Bridge Capital, were alter egos of the award-debtor corporations and should also be liable.The District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands granted a joint motion by Baldwin and Bridge Capital to dismiss the petition, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to enforce the awards against parties not named as debtors in the arbitral awards. The court reasoned that Lao PDR would need to bring a separate action to pursue enforcement against alleged alter egos. The court stayed a similar motion by Scott pending the present appeal.Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 203 because the awards arose from a commercial, international relationship and were foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention. The appellate court determined that the district court was required to consider the merits of Lao PDR’s alter ego theory in a single enforcement proceeding, rather than requiring a separate action. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "THE GOVERNMENT OF THE LAO PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC V. BALDWIN" on Justia Law