Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Robert Crawford was admitted to a hospital in August 2018 in critical condition. The next day, his daughter Carol obtained a general power of attorney (POA) allegedly signed by Robert and notarized by Lindsay, though Robert’s condition raised questions about the validity of the POA. Carol attempted to use the POA to access Robert’s bank accounts; one bank and a hospital refused to honor it, but First Security Bank (FSB) allowed significant withdrawals, despite having prior instructions from Robert to prohibit such transactions unless he appeared in person. Robert died intestate in September 2018, and Dasie Mae Richmond was appointed administratrix of his estate.Dasie filed suit in the Quitman County Chancery Court in August 2021 against FSB, Carol, and Lindsay, alleging improper procurement of the POA, conversion, conspiracy, negligence, and breach of contract. After initial discovery, proceedings were stayed due to Carol’s indictment and plea related to exploitation of a vulnerable person. Lindsay filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied. Later, Lindsay moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b), with FSB and Carol joining. The chancery court granted dismissal as to Lindsay only, citing ongoing restitution by Carol and unresolved issues with FSB, but denied the motion as to FSB and Carol.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed only FSB’s appeal of the denial of dismissal. The Court held that the facts justifying dismissal for Lindsay applied equally to FSB and found no sound basis in the record for treating FSB differently. The Supreme Court of Mississippi concluded that the chancery court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 41(b) dismissal as to FSB. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and rendered judgment dismissing the claims against FSB. View "First Security Bank v. Richmond" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an individual residing overseas, alleged that his longstanding debit card account with the defendant bank was improperly deactivated on multiple occasions, including after a series of withdrawals he used to pay rent in Mauritius. He claimed that the bank’s customer service was difficult to navigate and that the deactivation caused him mental anguish and damages. He sought damages and injunctive relief, asserting the bank had a duty to restore his access and protect against fraud without jeopardizing customers.The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint in the Kent County Superior Court. The plaintiff, who was self-represented, filed a motion seeking permission to appear remotely by WebEx for the hearing on the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Superior Court docket indicated that his motion to appear remotely was not scheduled because he did not request a hearing date. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, identifying the docket entry regarding his unscheduled motion as the order appealed from. After this, the Superior Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the plaintiff’s appeal, which focused on the denial of his motion to appear remotely and broader challenges to the Superior Court’s in-person appearance requirements. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was procedurally improper because the plaintiff did not appeal from an appealable final judgment, order, or decree, but rather from a non-appealable docket entry. The Court therefore denied and dismissed the appeal, and the case may be remanded to the Superior Court. The Court also noted that the discretion to permit remote appearances lies with the trial justice under the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. View "LaPadula v. Citizens Financial Group, Inc." on Justia Law

A plaintiff obtained a default judgment in Texas state court against Hugh D. Dale, Jr. and two companies he controlled. To enforce the judgment, the plaintiff registered it in West Virginia, where the Circuit Court of Calhoun County issued writs of execution and approved a process known as “suggestion” to identify assets belonging to the judgment debtors. Peoples Bank, which held several accounts listing the judgment debtors as co-owners along with various partnerships, was notified and, pursuant to statutory procedure, debited the accounts and sent the funds to the judgment creditor. The partnerships, also named on the accounts, claimed the funds belonged exclusively to them and not to Dale or his companies.The partnerships filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia against Peoples Bank and its employees, alleging negligence and conversion. The district court dismissed the negligence claim as untimely and the conversion claim as implausible, concluding the bank had merely complied with the statutory mechanism for judgment enforcement. The partnerships appealed only the dismissal of the conversion claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the conversion claim de novo. It held that Peoples Bank’s actions were authorized by West Virginia law, specifically West Virginia Code § 38-5-14, which allows a bank to turn over property belonging to a judgment debtor upon receipt of a suggestion and provides immunity from liability for doing so. The court found no wrongful exercise of dominion by the bank, as required for conversion, and rejected arguments that the bank acted improperly by not affording the partnerships or Dale prior notice. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the conversion claim. View "Cin Dale 3 v. Peoples Bank Corp." on Justia Law

A group of borrowers in California brought a class action against Flagstar Bank, alleging that the bank failed to pay interest on their mortgage escrow accounts as required by California Civil Code § 2954.8(a). Flagstar did not pay interest on these accounts, arguing that the National Bank Act (NBA) preempted the California law, and therefore, it was not obligated to comply. The plaintiffs sought restitution for the unpaid interest.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, relying on the Ninth Circuit’s prior decision in Lusnak v. Bank of America, N.A., granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs. The court ordered Flagstar to pay restitution and prejudgment interest to the class. Flagstar appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Lusnak foreclosed Flagstar’s preemption argument. However, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to correct the class definition date and the judgment amount due to errors in the statute of limitations tolling and calculation of damages.On remand from the United States Supreme Court, following its decision in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether it could overrule Lusnak in light of Cantero. The court held that Cantero did not render Lusnak “clearly irreconcilable” with Supreme Court precedent, and therefore, the panel lacked authority to overrule Lusnak. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the NBA does not preempt California’s interest-on-escrow law, but vacated and remanded the judgment and class certification order for modification of the class definition date and judgment amount. View "KIVETT V. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB" on Justia Law

A bank holding company sued two guarantors for breach of their personal guaranties on a $1.5 million loan extended to an entity they were involved with. The guarantors argued that the bank holding company lacked standing to sue because there was no written assignment of the loan documents from the original lender, a bank, to the holding company. The district court admitted the written assignment into evidence and found that the holding company had standing. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of the holding company, finding the guarantors liable under the terms of their guaranties.The guarantors had counterclaimed against the holding company and other parties, alleging fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. They argued that the bank and its president conspired with a now-deceased individual to conceal the financial instability of the individual’s entities, which led to the guarantors entering into the guaranties. The district court found no genuine issue of material fact regarding these counterclaims and granted summary judgment for the holding company.The guarantors also attempted to file a document in which the personal representative of the deceased individual’s estate confessed judgment against the estate. The district court ruled this filing a nullity, as the personal representative’s appointment had been terminated before the filing, and he was not authorized to act on behalf of the estate.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that the holding company had standing, the guarantors were liable under the guaranties, and the counterclaims were unsupported by evidence. The court also upheld the ruling that the purported confession of judgment was a nullity. View "Henderson State Co. v. Garrelts" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Aleksandra Veljovic, filed a lawsuit against TD Bank, N.A. and its former employee, Zlata Cavka, alleging negligence, negligent supervision, and respondeat superior. Veljovic claimed that Cavka negligently notarized a fraudulent document used by her ex-husband to secure a divorce order in Serbia, which resulted in the loss of her marital property. Veljovic argued that TD Bank should be held liable for Cavka's actions. The Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division, dismissed Veljovic's complaint with prejudice, concluding that she could not recover for purely economic losses and failed to demonstrate a special relationship between the parties. The court also denied her post-judgment request to amend her complaint.TD Bank moved to dismiss the complaint under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Veljovic's claims were barred by the economic-loss rule, that neither TD Bank nor Cavka owed her an independent duty of care, and that she failed to plead facts establishing necessary causation. The court granted the motion, finding that Veljovic sought compensation solely for economic losses and did not establish a special relationship with the defendants. The court also dismissed the claims against Cavka after Veljovic failed to respond to a show-cause order.Veljovic appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint and denying her motion to amend. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that Veljovic did not allege sufficient facts to show a special relationship with the defendants and that her claims were barred by the economic-loss rule. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying her motion to amend the complaint, as the proposed amendments would not have established a special relationship or overcome the economic-loss rule. View "Veljovic v. TD Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Michael Straus wired $60,000 to an account at GBC International Bank (GBC) owned by Apex Oil and Gas Trading, LLC (Apex). Apex allegedly failed to provide the services Straus paid for, withdrew the funds, and disappeared. Straus sued GBC in May 2024, claiming negligence and wantonness, alleging GBC closed Apex's account knowing Apex was engaged in fraud. Straus argued GBC's website acknowledged its obligations under the Patriot Act to prevent such fraud.The Jefferson Circuit Court denied GBC's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. GBC then petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to dismiss the case.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case de novo. GBC argued it had no general or specific personal jurisdiction in Alabama, supported by an affidavit from its executive vice president and chief financial officer, Richard Holmes. Holmes stated GBC had no business operations, property, or targeted advertising in Alabama. Straus's response included an unsworn declaration, which the court found insufficient to establish jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Alabama held that Straus's unilateral action of wiring money to GBC did not establish specific personal jurisdiction. GBC's general statements on its website about compliance with federal law did not constitute purposeful availment of conducting activities in Alabama. The court concluded that GBC did not have the minimum contacts necessary to subject it to personal jurisdiction in Alabama. Therefore, the court granted GBC's petition and directed the circuit court to dismiss Straus's complaint. View "Ex parte GBC International Bank" on Justia Law

George and Maria Dernis borrowed money from Premier Bank, which was involved in fraudulent lending practices. The loans were secured by mortgages on their personal real estate. After Premier Bank collapsed, the FDIC was appointed as receiver and sold some of the bank's loans, including the Dernises' loans, to Amos Financial in 2014. The Dernises claimed that the FDIC was aware of the fraudulent nature of the loans and failed to take remedial action. They filed a lawsuit against the FDIC, which was dismissed by the district court. They then filed an amended complaint against the United States under the FTCA, alleging various torts based on the FDIC's conduct.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the amended complaint, determining that most of the claims were not timely exhausted under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). The court also found that the sole timely claim was barred by the FTCA’s intentional torts exception under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). The court dismissed the action with prejudice and entered final judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the Dernises failed to timely exhaust their administrative remedies for most of their claims. The court also held that the only timely claim was barred by the FTCA’s intentional torts exception, as it involved misrepresentation, deceit, and interference with contract rights. The court rejected the Dernises' argument that the FDIC’s "sue-and-be-sued" clause provided a broader waiver of sovereign immunity, noting that the United States was the sole defendant and the FTCA provided the exclusive remedy for tort claims against the United States. View "Dernis v United States" on Justia Law

Hamilton Reserve Bank, the beneficial owner of $250,490,000 in Sri Lankan government bonds, sued the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York after Sri Lanka defaulted on the bonds. Over a year later, Jesse Guzman, Ultimate Concrete LLC, and Intercoastal Finance Ltd. sought to intervene, claiming Hamilton defrauded them by using their deposited funds to purchase the bonds and then refusing to allow them to withdraw their money.The district court denied the motion to intervene, holding that it lacked jurisdiction over the intervenors' claims. The court found that the claims did not derive from a "common nucleus of operative fact" with Hamilton's breach of contract claim against Sri Lanka, as required for supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court applied the correct "common nucleus of operative fact" standard for evaluating supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367(a). The court concluded that the intervenors' claims, which involved a banking dispute with Hamilton, did not share substantial factual overlap with Hamilton's breach of contract claim against Sri Lanka. Therefore, the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction over the intervenors' claims and denied their motion to intervene. View "Hamilton Reserve Bank v. Sri Lanka" on Justia Law

Banorte, a group of five associated entities of the Mexican bank Grupo Financiero Banorte, sued Cartograf S.A. de C.V. (Cartograf Mexico) in the Fourth Civil Court of Mexico City in 2021. Banorte alleged that Cartograf Mexico and its sole administrator, José Páramo Riestra, defaulted on loans and concealed assets. Banorte filed an ex parte application in the Eastern District of Virginia to conduct discovery on Cartograf Mexico’s American subsidiary, Cartograf USA, Inc., under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. The district court granted the application, allowing Banorte to serve Cartograf USA with a subpoena. Cartograf USA moved to quash the subpoena, but the district court denied the motion.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted Banorte’s application for discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, finding that the statutory requirements and discretionary factors set out in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. weighed in Banorte’s favor. The court allowed Banorte to serve subpoenas on Cartograf USA, seeking documents and deposition testimony related to Cartograf USA’s relationship with Cartograf Mexico and Páramo. Cartograf USA argued that the discovery was not for use in a foreign proceeding and that Banorte’s requests were made in bad faith, but the district court rejected these arguments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that Banorte satisfied the statutory requirements of § 1782, including the “for use” requirement, as the requested discovery had a reasonable possibility of being useful in the Mexican civil proceedings. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in analyzing the Intel factors, including the receptivity of the foreign tribunal and whether the request was an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court’s careful consideration of the factors and its decision to grant the application and deny the motion to quash were appropriate. View "Banco Mercantil Del Norte, S.A v. Cartograf USA, Inc." on Justia Law