Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

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

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

The State of Ohio brought a lawsuit in state court against several pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and related entities, alleging they conspired to artificially inflate prescription drug prices in violation of Ohio law. Ohio claimed that the PBMs, acting as intermediaries between drug manufacturers and health plans, negotiated rebates and fees in a manner that increased drug list prices and extracted payments from pharmacies, harming consumers and violating state antitrust and consumer protection statutes. The PBMs provided services to both private clients and federal health plans, including those for federal employees and military personnel.The defendants, Express Scripts and Prime Therapeutics, removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under the federal officer removal statute, arguing that their negotiations on drug prices were conducted on behalf of both federal and non-federal clients in a unified process subject to federal oversight. Ohio moved to remand the case to state court, asserting that its claims did not target conduct directed by federal officers and disclaimed any challenge to the administration of federal health programs like FEHBA or TRICARE. The district court accepted Ohio’s disclaimer and determined that the complaint did not impose liability for acts under federal direction, granting Ohio’s motion to remand.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the matter de novo. The court held that the PBMs were “persons acting under” federal officers because their negotiations were performed under detailed federal supervision and regulation for federal health plans. The court further found that the complaint related to acts under color of federal office, as the alleged wrongful conduct was inseparable from federally directed negotiations. The court also determined that the PBMs raised colorable federal defenses based on federal preemption. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s remand order and remanded the case for further proceedings in federal court. View "Ohio ex rel. Yost v. Ascent Health Services, LLC" on Justia Law

An investor brought a derivative action against the managers of a limited liability company, alleging unauthorized transactions conducted under their management. After a bench trial, the investor lost both at trial and on appeal. The investor’s claims were rejected, and the court awarded costs to the prevailing manager. Although both managers were originally involved in the case, only one remained relevant for the cost award proceedings at this stage.Following the trial and appellate losses, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County awarded costs to the prevailing manager under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 and California Rules of Court, rule 8.891, which together provide that a prevailing party is generally entitled to recover costs. The plaintiff had previously defeated the manager’s motion for a security bond under Corporations Code section 17709.02, a statute intended to deter frivolous derivative suits. The plaintiff argued that this earlier success on the bond motion should bar any subsequent award of costs, claiming that section 17709.02 overrides the ordinary cost rules.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed this argument. The appellate court held that Corporations Code section 17709.02 does not preclude an award of ordinary litigation costs to a prevailing defendant in a derivative action where the bond motion was denied. The court found no statutory language supporting the plaintiff’s position and noted that case law, including Brusso v. Running Springs Country Club, Inc., confirms that the bond statute is special-purpose and does not displace general cost-recovery rules. The appellate court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, awarding costs to the prevailing defendant. The court also found that the plaintiff had forfeited several additional arguments by failing to support them with adequate briefing or legal authority. View "Barrios v. Chraghchian" on Justia Law

LJM Partners, Ltd. and Two Roads Shared Trust, both involved in options trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, experienced catastrophic losses on February 5 and 6, 2018, when volatility in the S&P 500 surged unexpectedly; LJM lost approximately 86.5% of its managed assets and the Preservation Fund (managed by Two Roads) lost around 80%. The plaintiffs alleged that eight defendant firms, acting as market makers, manipulated the VIX index by submitting inflated bid-ask quotes for certain SPX Options, which artificially raised volatility and resulted in inflated prices on the plaintiffs' trades, causing over one billion dollars in combined losses.After initially filing complaints against unnamed "John Doe" defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the plaintiffs pursued extensive discovery to identify the responsible parties. The cases were swept into a multidistrict litigation proceeding (VIX MDL), which delayed discovery. Eventually, after several rounds of amended complaints, the plaintiffs identified and named eight defendant firms. The defendants moved to dismiss. The district court found that LJM lacked Article III standing because it failed to allege an injury in fact, as the losses belonged to its clients, not LJM itself. For Two Roads, the district court held that its claims were time-barred under the Commodity Exchange Act’s two-year statute of limitations, and equitable tolling was denied due to lack of diligence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held that LJM’s complaint failed to establish Article III standing, as it did not allege that LJM itself—not just its clients—suffered actual losses. The court further held that Two Roads’s complaint was untimely and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing equitable tolling. Both dismissals were affirmed. View "LJM Partners, Ltd. v. Barclays Capital, Inc." on Justia Law

Several senior financial advisors resigned from a national investment advisory firm’s Des Moines branch to join a competitor that was opening a new local office. After their departure, nearly all remaining advisors at the branch also resigned en masse and joined the competitor, which offered substantial incentives. The resignations occurred despite restrictive covenants in the former advisors’ employment contracts, which limited their ability to solicit clients, disclose confidential information, and recruit other employees. The competitor and the departing advisors soon began servicing many of their former clients, resulting in a substantial loss of business for their previous employer.Following these events, the original firm filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, alleging breach of contract, tortious interference, and theft of trade secrets. The district court initially denied a temporary restraining order but later granted a broad preliminary injunction. This injunction prohibited the former advisors from servicing or soliciting covered clients, using confidential information, or recruiting employees, and it barred the competitor from using confidential information or interfering with employment agreements. The defendants sought a stay but were denied by both the district court and the appellate court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the preliminary injunction. The appellate court determined that the record did not show a likelihood of irreparable harm that could not be compensated by money damages, as required for preliminary injunctive relief. The court found that the alleged financial harms were calculable and that the claimed destruction of the Des Moines branch had already occurred, rendering injunctive relief ineffective for preventing future harm. The Eighth Circuit therefore vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Choreo, LLC v. Lors" on Justia Law

A privately held Nebraska S corporation had two classes of stock: Class A voting shares and Class B nonvoting shares. In 2023, the corporation sold substantially all its assets to a third party in a transaction structured as a disposition of assets, with proceeds distributed to all shareholders. The board unanimously approved the transaction, and the majority of both classes of shares voted in favor, except for some Class A and Class B shareholders, who opposed or abstained. Following closing, Class B shareholders received their cash proceeds but subsequently notified the corporation of their intent to assert appraisal rights, seeking a higher payment per share.The District Court for Sarpy County was presented with cross-motions for partial summary judgment regarding whether Class B nonvoting shareholders were entitled to appraisal rights under Nebraska’s Model Business Corporation Act (NMBCA) following the asset sale. The district court found that the relevant statute (§ 21-2,172(a)(3)) limited appraisal rights for a disposition of assets to shareholders “entitled to vote on the disposition,” and therefore determined that Class B shareholders lacked such rights. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the corporation and related parties, dismissed certain third-party defendants, and certified the judgment for immediate appeal pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315(1).On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and its certification for abuse of discretion. The court held that only Class A voting shareholders were entitled to appraisal rights in connection with the disposition of assets, as the statute unambiguously limited such rights to voting shareholders. The court also found no express grant of appraisal rights to Class B shareholders in the articles of incorporation. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Streck, Inc. v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Two siblings, Ryan and Nancy, disputed the administration of their father Hal’s estate and the status of his ownership interest in Tautphaus Park Storage, LLC (TPS), an Idaho storage facility business. Hal, who suffered from progressive dementia before his death, was TPS’s sole voting member and manager, with Nancy assisting in legal and management matters. Several amendments to TPS’s operating agreement changed ownership and management, culminating—after Hal’s death—in Nancy executing further amendments that retroactively transferred Hal’s economic interest to herself and changed accounting records. Nancy, an attorney, served as both Hal’s lawyer and later as personal representative of his estate. Ryan questioned whether Hal’s interest in TPS remained an estate asset and sought access to business records, which Nancy resisted.The siblings litigated issues in two related cases in Bonneville County: a probate case in the Magistrate Court regarding Hal’s estate, and a separate TEDRA (Trust and Estate Dispute Resolution Act) civil action in District Court initiated by Ryan. Both courts and parties at times treated the cases as consolidated. Ryan’s TEDRA complaint sought judicial determination of estate assets, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and appointment of a receiver, naming Nancy in both her individual and representative capacities and TPS as defendants. The magistrate court dismissed Ryan’s claims and removed Nancy and TPS as parties, finding that estate matters should be decided exclusively in probate. The district court affirmed, denying Ryan’s motions and dismissing his amended complaint, reasoning that Ryan’s claims were matters for probate only.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho vacated both lower courts’ judgments. It held that Ryan’s claims for judicial determination of estate assets and breach of fiduciary duty fall within TEDRA’s definition of “matters” and may be raised in a separate civil action, not only in probate. The Court reversed the orders dismissing claims and parties, remanded the case for further proceedings, and awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees to Ryan against Nancy personally. View "Monson v. Monson" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between two siblings, Wayne Orkin and Lisa Albert, over the operation and ownership of a business called Boost Web SEO, Inc. Orkin managed the day-to-day business and generated all of its revenue, while Albert incorporated the company and was listed as its registered agent and officer. No written agreements clarified their roles, profit sharing, or compensation. In 2014, residual income from a payment processing arrangement was assigned to Boost Web, which both parties treated as company revenue for years. In 2021, after a breakdown in their relationship, Albert cut Orkin’s access to company funds and accused him of fraudulent activities in communications with a third-party vendor. Orkin then redirected company revenues to an account he controlled, prompting legal action.The litigation began in Massachusetts Superior Court, where Orkin (and his father) sued Albert and her son for various state-law claims, and Albert removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Boost Web intervened with a crossclaim against Orkin. After partial summary judgment, the remaining claims—Orkin’s defamation and related claims against Albert, and Boost Web’s conversion claim against Orkin—proceeded to a bench trial. The district court ruled for Albert on the defamation claim, finding her email was not defamatory or was protected as true, and for Boost Web on conversion, awarding it damages for funds Orkin took as personal expenses and for redirected residuals. The court also found Orkin in contempt for interfering with its orders and permanently enjoined him from pursuing related litigation in Florida.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court erred in dismissing Orkin’s defamation claim, finding that Albert’s email could be defamatory per se and remanded for further proceedings on truthfulness. It affirmed the conversion judgment regarding the redirected residuals but vacated the judgment concerning personal expenses, holding that Orkin was entitled to some compensation and remanded to determine the appropriate amount. The court vacated the contempt order and the permanent injunction, finding the previous orders did not unambiguously decide Boost Web’s ownership. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Orkin v. Albert" on Justia Law

Epic Games, a developer and operator of the Epic Games Store, sued Apple over its App Store practices, alleging violations of federal and California competition law. The dispute centered on Apple’s rules requiring developers to use Apple’s in-app payment system, which imposed a 30% commission, and its prohibition of developers directing users to other purchasing options outside the App Store. After a bench trial, the district court found Apple’s anti-steering provisions violated California’s Unfair Competition Law by preventing informed consumer choice but upheld Apple’s in-app payment system requirement for digital goods. The court issued an injunction barring Apple from restricting developers from including in their apps buttons, links, or other calls to action that direct users to alternative purchasing mechanisms.Following the injunction, Apple implemented a compliance plan involving a 27% commission on linked-out purchases and a series of restrictions on how developers could present external payment options, including limitations on button design, link placement, and user flow. Epic contested Apple’s compliance, arguing these measures still effectively prohibited alternative purchases. After holding multiple evidentiary hearings, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found Apple in civil contempt for failing to comply with the injunction, citing Apple’s bad faith and pretextual justifications. The district court imposed broad sanctions, including prohibiting any commission on linked-out purchases, restricting Apple’s ability to limit external links, and referring Apple for criminal investigation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s contempt findings and most of the resulting sanctions but found portions of the sanctions—particularly the blanket ban on commissions—overbroad and more punitive than coercive. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded those parts for further tailoring, clarified the scope of permissible developer link prominence, and declined to vacate the injunction or reassign the case. The court otherwise affirmed the district court’s orders. View "EPIC GAMES, INC. V. APPLE INC." on Justia Law