Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

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

Steven Fustolo purchased a rental investment unit in Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009, taking out a mortgage with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as nominee for Union Capital Mortgage Business Trust. The mortgage was reassigned six times, and Fustolo defaulted on the loan. He sought a declaratory judgment that the current holders, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation as Trustee of SCRT 2019-2 (the Trust) and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS), had no right to foreclose because they did not validly hold the mortgage or the accompanying promissory note. Fustolo also claimed defamation, slander of title, unfair business practices, violation of Massachusetts's Debt Collection Act, and a violation of Regulation X of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) by SPS.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed Fustolo's claims, except for one count challenging the adequacy of a notice letter, which was later settled. The court found that the Trust validly held both the mortgage and the note, and that Fustolo's state law claims hinged on the incorrect assertion that the Trust did not have the right to foreclose. The court also dismissed the RESPA claim, stating that Fustolo failed to specify which provision of RESPA was violated and that SPS had responded to his notice of error.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the Trust validly held the mortgage and the note, as the note was indorsed in blank and in the Trust's possession. The court also found that MERS had the authority to assign the mortgage despite Union Capital's dissolution. Additionally, the court ruled that Fustolo's RESPA claim failed because challenges to the merits of a servicer's evaluation of a loss mitigation application do not relate to the servicing of the loan and are not covered errors under RESPA. View "Fustolo v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, a group of American service members and their families affected by the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, sought to enforce multi-billion-dollar judgments against Iran. They aimed to obtain $1.68 billion held in an account with Clearstream Banking, a Luxembourg-based financial institution, representing bond investments made in New York on behalf of Bank Markazi, Iran’s central bank. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering Clearstream and Bank Markazi to turn over the account contents. Clearstream and Bank Markazi appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ turnover claim against Bank Markazi. However, it determined that the district court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Clearstream. The court also found that Clearstream’s challenge to the constitutionality of 22 U.S.C. § 8772, which makes certain assets available to satisfy judgments against Iran, failed. Despite this, the court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs without applying state law to determine the ownership of the assets.The Second Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's order and judgment. It remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to determine whether Bank Markazi is an indispensable party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 and to apply state law to ascertain the parties' interests in the assets before applying 22 U.S.C. § 8772. View "Peterson v. Bank Markazi" on Justia Law

Markisha Lattimore obtained a judgment exceeding $20 million against Kim Brothers Kickin’ Kids, LLC. Instead of collecting directly from Kickin’ Kids, Lattimore initiated garnishment actions against twelve financial services companies, including RBC Global Asset Management (U.S.), Inc. (Global), using a garnishment summons form for financial institutions. Global, a registered investment advisor, did not respond to the summons, leading Lattimore to move for a garnishment default judgment for the full amount. Global claimed it did not receive the motion and did not respond. The State Court of Fulton County entered a default judgment against Global.The State Court of Fulton County denied Global’s motion to set aside the default judgment. The court ruled that Global was a financial institution, that Lattimore used the correct summons form, and that Global waived any defect in the form used. Global argued that it was not a financial institution as defined by the statute and that the incorrect summons form invalidated the garnishment action, thus failing to establish personal jurisdiction. The court also ruled that Global could not challenge the constitutionality of the default judgment in its motion to set aside.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and reversed the lower court’s decision. The court held that Global, as a registered investment advisor, did not meet the statutory definition of a financial institution. Therefore, Lattimore used the wrong summons form, rendering the garnishment invalid and failing to obtain personal jurisdiction over Global. The court concluded that the State Court of Fulton County abused its discretion in denying Global’s motion to set aside the default judgment. The judgment was reversed. View "RBC GLOBAL ASSET MANAGEMENT (U.S.) INC. v. LATTIMORE" on Justia Law

Kevin and Gretchen Higdon, residents of Missouri, opened a joint bank account in Missouri, which was later held by Equity Bank. M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank obtained a judgment against Kevin in Missouri and sought to garnish the Higdons' account in Kansas to satisfy the judgment. The account was listed as "Joint (Right of Survivorship)" under Missouri law, which presumes a tenancy by the entirety for married couples, meaning the account could not be garnished for a judgment against only one spouse.The Johnson County District Court in Kansas denied the Higdons' motion to quash the garnishment, applying Kansas law, which does not recognize tenancy by the entirety. The court held that the account was a joint tenancy, allowing M & I Bank to garnish Kevin's half of the account. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, focusing on the procedural nature of garnishment under Kansas law.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the issue of account ownership was substantive, not procedural. The court applied the First Restatement of Conflict of Laws, which directs that the law of the state where the property interest was created (Missouri) should govern. Under Missouri law, the account was held as a tenancy by the entirety, and thus, M & I Bank could not garnish it for a judgment against Kevin alone.The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case with directions to return the garnished funds to the Higdons, holding that Missouri law applied to the ownership of the account, preventing the garnishment. View "M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Higdon" on Justia Law