Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The case involves a group of appellants who allegedly purchased luxury vehicles with funds provided by Dilmurod Akramov, the owner of CBC and D&O Group. The appellants would then transfer the vehicle titles back to Akramov's D&O Group without receiving cash or equivalent in exchange. They would then claim a "trade-in credit" against the sales tax due on the purchase of a vehicle. The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) argued that these were not valid sales as required by Arkansas law and denied the sales-tax-refund claims.The appellants challenged the DFA's decision through the administrative review process, which affirmed the DFA's decision. The appellants then appealed to the Pulaski County Circuit Court for further review. The circuit court found that the appellants' attorney, Jason Stuart, was a necessary witness and therefore disqualified him from further representing the appellants. The court also held the appellants in contempt for failing to provide discovery per the court's order.The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in disqualifying Stuart. The court applied the three-prong test from Weigel v. Farmers Ins. Co., which requires that the attorney's testimony is material to the determination of the issues being litigated, the evidence is unobtainable elsewhere, and the testimony is or may be prejudicial to the testifying attorney’s client. The court found that all three prongs were satisfied in this case. The court also affirmed the circuit court's decision to strike the third amended and supplemental complaint filed by Stuart after his disqualification. View "STUART v. WALTHER" on Justia Law

FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc. (FXG) filed a lawsuit against Route Consultant, Inc., alleging that the latter company had made nine false or misleading statements about FXG's business practices. FXG contended that these statements were intended to foster discontent between FXG and its contractors, thereby damaging FXG and benefiting Route Consultant. The suit was brought under both the Lanham Act's false advertising provision and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act's statutory disparagement provision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit confirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss the case. The court found that FXG had failed to plausibly allege that Route Consultant made a single false or misleading statement. The court emphasized that only statements of fact--not opinions, puffery, or rhetorical hyperbole--are actionable under the false advertising provision of the Lanham Act. Moreover, a plaintiff must plead and prove the literal falsity of the defendant's statement or demonstrate that the statement is misleading. FXG's complaint did not meet these standards.The court also held that FXG's claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act failed for the same reasons as its Lanham Act claim. Thus, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of FXG's lawsuit against Route Consultant. View "FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc. v. Route Consultant, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Joseph Gazal, donated over $1 million to purchase a car and a home for a destitute family. He was inspired to make this donation after hearing a homily delivered by defendant Carlos Echeverry, a deacon at his church. Gazal brought a lawsuit against Echeverry and his wife, Jessica Echeverry, as well as SOFESA, Inc., a nonprofit founded and led by Jessica Echeverry. Gazal claimed he was deceived into believing the car and house would be purchased for and titled to the destitute family, when in fact they were bought and titled to SOFESA.The defendants filed a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, asserting that the homily and following conversations were protected speech. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the complaint did not rest on protected speech, but rather on private conduct and speech not directed at a wide public audience. Additionally, the court found that the causes of action arose from further communications that took place weeks after the homily.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Eight affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that while the homily could be considered protected speech, the plaintiff's claims did not arise from the homily but rather from the alleged misconduct that occurred after its delivery. The court also found that the private discussions following the homily did not qualify for anti-SLAPP protection as they did not contribute to a public conversation on the issue of homelessness. Furthermore, the court denied a motion for sanctions filed by the plaintiff. View "Gazal v. Echeverry" on Justia Law

In 2014, plaintiffs Medallion Film LLC and Pelican Point Capital Partners entered into a consulting fee agreement with Clarius Capital Group, managed by William Sadleir. The agreement stipulated that Medallion Film and Pelican Point would assist Clarius in obtaining funding for film projects, and Clarius would pay them a portion of any funding obtained. However, it is alleged that Sadleir dissolved Clarius and its affiliate and subsidiary entities in 2015 and formed a new set of corporate entities under the name Aviron with the assistance of the law firm Loeb & Loeb.The plaintiffs allege that Sadleir controlled both the Clarius and Aviron entities and transferred Clarius’s assets to the Aviron entities. Aviron later obtained a loan for its film projects from BlackRock, which Medallion Film and Pelican Point claim they were entitled to a portion of under their agreement with Clarius. However, Sadleir denied any affiliation between Aviron and Clarius and said he was solely an employee of Aviron.The plaintiffs sued Loeb & Loeb in December 2021, alleging causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, deceit by concealment, negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting fraud, and violating California Business and Professions Code section 17200. Loeb & Loeb filed a special motion to strike the first amended complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation under section 425.16. The trial court granted the special motion to strike.However, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Eight vacated the judgment, reversed the order granting the special motion to strike, and remanded with directions to enter a new order denying the motion. View "Medallion Film LLC v. Loeb & Loeb LLP" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between Dr. R. Michael Williams, a board-certified oncologist, and several defendants, including Doctors Medical Center of Modesto (DMCM) and various associated individuals. After a deterioration in their professional relationship, Williams alleged that the defendants acted to limit his medical practice and restrict his hospital privileges, affecting his ability to treat patients. Williams filed multiple lawsuits against the defendants, the second of which is the subject of this appeal.The trial court granted two anti-SLAPP motions in favor of the defendants, finding that Williams' claims arose from their protected activity and that Williams failed to establish a probability of prevailing on his claims. The court also awarded the defendants their attorney fees. Williams appealed both the granting of the anti-SLAPP motions and the awards of attorney fees.The court of appeal reversed both the granting of the anti-SLAPP motions and the award of attorney fees, finding that the trial court erred in its application of the anti-SLAPP statute. The court distinguished between the factual allegations that form the basis of Williams' claims and the defendants' protected activities, concluding that not all of the claims in the complaint arose from protected activity. As such, not all of Williams' claims were subject to the anti-SLAPP statute and the defendants were not entitled to attorney fees. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its decision. View "Williams v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of plaintiffs who claimed that the defendant, Bank of America, fraudulently denied them mortgage modifications under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) and then foreclosed on their homes. The plaintiffs filed their complaint in May 2018 and their amended complaint in March 2019, alleging claims based on common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, intentional misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, conversion, unjust enrichment, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and, in the alternative, negligence.However, the Supreme Court of North Carolina found that the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The court held that the statutes of limitations for all of plaintiffs’ claims, except for their unfair and deceptive trade practices claim, started to run at the latest by the date that each plaintiff lost his or her home. Each plaintiff lost his or her home sometime between April 2011 and January 2014. Thus, the latest point in time any plaintiff could have filed a complaint was January 2017, or in the case of an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim, January 2018. Plaintiffs did not file their original complaint until May 2018. Therefore, their claims are time-barred.The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations for their fraud claims beyond the dates of their foreclosures. The court found that the plaintiffs were on notice of the defendant's alleged fraud by the time they lost their homes, and they should have investigated further. The court therefore reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint. View "Taylor v. Bank of America, N.A" on Justia Law

The case before the Supreme Court of North Carolina involved a dispute between The Society for the Historical Preservation of the Twentysixth North Carolina Troops, Inc. (plaintiff) and the City of Asheville (defendant). The controversy centered around a monument dedicated to Zebulon Vance, a former North Carolina Governor and Confederate Colonel. The plaintiff, a nonprofit historical preservation organization, raised funds to restore the monument and entered into a donation agreement with the City, whereby the monument was restored and then donated to the City. However, the City later decided to remove the monument, citing it as a public safety threat due to vandalism and threats of toppling.In response, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the City, alleging that the City breached the 2015 donation agreement and seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and a declaratory judgment. The plaintiff argued that both parties had entered into a contract with the intent to preserve the monument in perpetuity. The City filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The trial court granted the City's motion, and this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.When the case reached the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the court reversed the Court of Appeals’ determination that the plaintiff's breach of contract claim should be dismissed for lack of standing. However, the court noted that the plaintiff had abandoned the merits of its breach of contract claim in its appeal. As such, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and declaratory judgment for lack of standing. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to assert any ground for which it has standing to contest the removal of the monument. View "Soc'y for the Hist. Pres. of the Twenty-sixth N.C. Troops, Inc. v. City of Asheville" on Justia Law

This case was brought before the Supreme Court of North Carolina to determine whether a person who files a motion to claim exempt property after a judgment is entered makes a general appearance in the action and thereby waives objections to the sufficiency of service of process and personal jurisdiction.The plaintiff, John Slattery, alleged that he was induced to invest $500,000 in a sham technology company, Appy City, by defendants Timothy Fields and Melissa Crete. Later, he named additional defendants, including Daisy Mae Barber, alleging they conspired to hide the invested funds by converting them into cryptocurrency. The Business Court entered default judgment against all defendants, including Barber, when they failed to respond to the complaint. Barber first appeared in the case when she filed a motion to claim exempt property. Later, she moved to set aside the entries of default and summary judgment, arguing the Business Court’s judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction as she had not been served with process nor appeared in the action before the entry of summary judgment.The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that when a defendant makes a general appearance in an action after the entry of a judgment, she waives any objections to the lack of personal jurisdiction or the sufficiency of service of process if she does not raise those objections at that time. Therefore, Barber, by filing a motion to claim exempt property, made a general appearance in the underlying action and did not raise her objections to personal jurisdiction or the sufficiency of service of process until over three months later. As a result, she waived these objections, and the Business Court’s judgment may be enforced. The decision of the Business Court was affirmed. View "Slattery v. Appy City, LLC" on Justia Law

The dispute involves a disagreement between two brothers, Brian and William "Bill" Bento, over the distribution of the assets and liabilities of their joint business, Bento Construction, LLC, following its dissolution. Brian filed a complaint seeking judicial dissociation of Bill as a member of the company, its dissolution, and a declaration of each party's rights and interests in the company. Bill countered, seeking damages and the dissolution of the company. An agreement led to an order that dissolved the company and dissociated Bill as a member.The order assigned contracts for performance of work by Bento Construction to Brian's new company, Brian Bento Construction, LLC. It also tasked the parties with winding down the company's operations. Despite the dissolution, the company continued to operate for the limited purpose of winding up its affairs. The company had several unsettled obligations, based on projects contracted before the dissolution date, and was also involved in several pending lawsuits regarding disputed invoices.The trial court issued an order distributing personal property and accounts in possession of each brother to the respective brother. It also made Brian responsible for all debts and obligations of Bento Construction. However, the order did not address the company's incomplete projects or the ongoing lawsuits. Both brothers appealed the trial court's order.The Supreme Court of Alabama found that the trial court's order was not a final judgment as it did not conclusively determine all the matters presented regarding the distribution of the company's assets. It did not discuss or attempt to allocate any portion of the revenues that may arise from the incomplete projects or the lawsuits. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeals. View "Bento v. Bento" on Justia Law

The case involved a lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly known as Facebook) by a class of advertisers who claimed that Meta misrepresented the "Potential Reach" of advertisements on its platforms. The plaintiffs alleged that Meta falsely claimed that Potential Reach was an estimate of people, when in fact, it was an estimate of accounts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order certifying one class of advertisers (the damages class) who sought compensation for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment. The court stated that the misrepresentation was a common issue for the class and that the district court properly determined that the element of justifiable reliance was capable of classwide resolution.However, the court vacated the district court's order certifying another class of advertisers (the injunction class) who sought injunctive relief. The court asked the lower court to reconsider whether the named plaintiff, Cain Maxwell, had Article III standing to seek an injunction. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "DZ Reserve v. Meta Platforms, Inc." on Justia Law