Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A Texas citizen brought state-law claims in federal court against “Dining Alliance Inc.” Prior to the suit, however, Dining Alliance Inc. had converted into Dining Alliance LLC (“Dining Alliance”), whose citizenship may include both Texas and Delaware. This potential jurisdictional defect was not recognized because Dining Alliance originally answered under the name Dining Alliance Inc. and represented itself as a Massachusetts citizen. Dining Alliance unacceptably hid the ball with respect to the elementary jurisdictional facts during the entire course of litigation, including on appeal. The district court dismissed its third-party claims with prejudice as a sanction for that willful abuse of the judicial process.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that a district court may invoke its inherent power to dismiss claims with prejudice in order to protect “the integrity of the judicial process.” It must find that the litigant acted in bad faith or willfully abused the judicial process. It must also find that “lesser sanctions would not serve the best interests of justice.” The court wrote that contrary to Dining Alliance’s assertion, the district court found that Dining Alliance itself willfully abused the judicial process based on the totality of its litigation misconduct, which culminated in its refusal to obey the court’s order. That misstatement was reckless because the company’s transformation into Dining Alliance LLC should have been and apparently was known at the time. Accordingly, the court held that the district court neither lacked jurisdiction nor abused its discretion in dismissing Dining Alliance LLC’s third-party claims with prejudice as a sanction for its willful abuse of the judicial process. View "Dining Alliance v. Foodbuy" on Justia Law

The Colorado Supreme Court granted review in this case to consider whether the common law litigation privilege for party-generated publicity in pending class action litigation excluded situations in which the identities of class members were ascertainable through discovery. In 2018, two law firms, Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP and Towards Justice (collectively, along with attorney Mari Newman of Killmer, Lane & Newman, “the attorneys”), filed on behalf of former employee and nail technician Lisa Miles and those similarly situated a federal class action lawsuit. This lawsuit named as defendants BKP, Inc.; Ella Bliss Beauty Bar LLC; Ella Bliss Beauty Bar-2, LLC; and Ella Bliss Beauty Bar-3, LLC (collectively, “the employer”), among others. The employer operated three beauty bars in the Denver metropolitan area. Pertinent here, the class action complaint alleged that the employer’s business operation was “founded on the exploitation of its workers.” The complaint alleged that the employer violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Wage Claim Act by not paying service technicians for hours spent performing janitorial work, electing to forgo hiring a janitorial service. The Supreme Court concluded the division erred in conditioning the applicability of the litigation privilege in pending class action litigation on whether the identities of class members were ascertainable through discovery. The Court reached this conclusion for two reasons: (1) ascertainability was generally a requirement in class action litigation, and imposing such a condition would unduly limit the privilege in this kind of case; and (2) the eventual identification of class members by way of documents obtained during discovery was not a substitute for reaching absent class members and witnesses in the beginning stages of litigation. The Court found the litigation privilege applied in this case: five allegedly defamatory statements at issue "merely repeated, summarized, or paraphrased the allegations made in the class action complaint, and which served the purpose of notifying the public, absent class members, and witnesses about the litigation, were absolutely privileged." View "Killmer, Lane & Newman v. B.K.P., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants-appellants and cross-appellees, Gregory Holifield (“Holifield”) and GH Blue Holdings, LLC (“Blue”), appealed a Court of Chancery memorandum opinion in favor of plaintiff- appellee and cross-appellant, XRI Investment Holdings LLC (“XRI”). The issue this case presented was whether Holifield validly transferred his limited liability membership units in XRI to Blue on June 6, 2018. The resolution of that issue bore on the ultimate dispute between the parties (not at issue here) on whether XRI validly delivered to Holifield a strict foreclosure notice purporting to foreclose on the XRI membership units, or whether such notice was incorrectly delivered to him because Blue was, in fact, the owner of the units following the transfer. Following a one-day trial, the Court of Chancery determined that the transfer of the units from Holifield to Blue was invalid because it was not a permitted transfer under XRI’s limited liability company agreement, which provided that noncompliant transfers of XRI interests were “void.” The trial court, in interpreting the Delaware Supreme Court's holding in CompoSecure, L.L.C. v. CardUX, LLC, 206 A.3d 807 (Del. 2018), held that the use of the word “void” in XRI’s LLC agreement rendered the transfer incurably void, such that affirmative defenses did not apply. Despite this holding, the trial court, in dicta, further found that XRI had acquiesced in the transfer. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Court of Chancery’s judgment with respect to the Blue Transfer, but reversed the judgment insofar as it precluded XRI’s recovery for breach of contract damages and recoupment of legal expenses advanced to Holifield. The Court held that the trial court’s finding of acquiescence as to only one of the alleged breaches did not bar either remedy, and the Court remanded the case for the trial court to make further determinations. View "Holifield v. XRI Investment Holdings LLC" on Justia Law

The petitioners here—two motorcycle dealerships who sought to enforce restrictive covenants against a former employee under Florida law— asked the Georgia Supreme Court to reconsider the application of a public-policy exception, citing recent changes in Georgia law that required a more flexible and permissive approach to enforcing restrictive covenants. When contracting parties choose the law of a jurisdiction other than Georgia to govern their contractual relations, Georgia courts generally honored that choice unless applying the foreign law would violate Georgia's public policy. Having taken a fresh look, the Supreme Court concluded that Georgia law remained "the touchstone for determining whether a given restrictive covenant is enforceable in our courts, even where the contract says another state’s law applies." After a careful review of Georgia decisional law and statutory history in this space, the Court found the Georgia legislature has codified this view, including with the recent enactment of the Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act. In this case, the trial court accepted the parties’ choice of Florida law to govern the employment contracts at issue without first determining whether the restrictive covenants in the contracts complied with the GRCA. The Court of Appeals reversed, and in doing so, correctly identified application of the GRCA as the first step in the analysis of whether the public-policy exception overrides the parties’ choice of foreign law. But because the Supreme Court set out a clear framework for that analysis in this opinion, it left it for the trial court to apply that framework in the first instance. The Court therefore vacated the decisions below for further review by the trial court. View "Motorsports of Conyers, LLC, et al. v. Burbach" on Justia Law

The underlying case against Defendants TeamHealth—a group of private equity-owned healthcare entities—was brought under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act. Two former TeamHealth employees (together, the “Relators”) alleged that TeamHealth routinely billed for nonexistent doctor examinations and critical care services. The matter was unsealed in 2018 after federal and state governments declined to intervene. The Relators moved forward with their case, which survived dismissal and proceeded through extensive discovery. Movant sought to permissively intervene in this closed matter to challenge the sealing of records. The district court denied Movant’s intervention on three independent grounds.   The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded. The court explained that although courts are afforded great discretion in deciding intervention pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b), the district court’s reasoning was premised on several significant errors. The court explained it has permitted intervention by nonparties who seek only to challenge record-related restrictions. The court concluded that Movant’s claim shares a common question of law with the district court’s decisions related to sealing records: Whether there are compelling reasons for sealing that outweigh the public’s right of access. Thus, the court reversed the district court’s determination that Movant has failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 24(b)(1).  The court explained that it firmly holds that Movant has satisfied standing and the requirements of Rule 24(b)(1), however, it reiterated the district court’s discretion in ultimately deciding Movant’s motion. View "USA v. Team Finance" on Justia Law

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) sued Defendant as well as other individual Defendants and corporate entities for securities violations. Defendant appealed the district court’s order appointing a receiver over all corporations and entities controlled by him. A central dispute between the parties is what test the district court should have applied before imposing a receivership. Defendant argued the district court abused its discretion because it did not apply the standard or make the proper findings under the factors set forth in Netsphere (“Netsphere factors”). The SEC responded that Netsphere is inapplicable and the district court’s findings were sufficient under First Financial.   The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s order appointing a receiver. The court granted in part Defendant’s motion for a partial stay pending appeal. The court explained that, as Defendant points out, the district court’s order denying the stay discussed events and actions that took place after the receivership was already in place. Accordingly, the court vacated the appointment of the receiver and remanded so that the district court may consider whether to appoint a new receivership under the Netsphere factors. The court immediately suspended the receiver’s power to sell or dispose of property belonging to receivership entities, including the power to complete sales or disposals of property already approved by the district court. The court explained that the suspension does not apply to activities in furtherance of sales or dispositions of property that have already occurred or been approved by the district court. The court clarified that “activities in furtherance” do not include the completion of the sale of any property. View "SEC v. Barton" on Justia Law

In 2019, Matt Dorsey brought an action against his father, Tom Dorsey, seeking formal accounting, dissolution, and winding up of their joint dairy operation, Dorsey Organics, LLC. The district court appointed a Special Master; the Special Master subsequently recommended to the district court that it grant partial summary judgment to Tom on Counts Four (breach of contract) and Five (constructive fraud). Without receiving a definitive ruling from the district court on the recommendations regarding the motions for summary judgment, the case then proceeded to a four-day hearing presided over by the Special Master, which resulted in the Special Master making Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The district court adopted, with almost no changes, the Special Master’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which relied upon the accounting of Tom's expert and rejected the opinions of Matt's expert. The district court then entered a judgment incorporating, with few changes, the Special Master’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The district court also denied Tom's request for attorney fees. Matt appealed, arguing: (1) the district court failed to properly review the evidence before accepting the findings of the Special Master; (2) questioned whether a court could override the terms of a contract even though the contract’s terms arguably produced an inequitable result; (3) Tom wrongfully dissociated from Dorsey Organics prior to its dissolution and the winding up of its affairs; and (4) challenged whether summary judgment was properly granted on Counts Four and Five of the Third Amended Complaint. The Idaho Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in failing to independently review the record before adopting the Special Master's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Accordingly, the Court vacated the district court's conclusions that relied on the Special Master's findings. The case was thus remanded for further proceedings. View "Dorsey v. Dorsey" on Justia Law

In April 2012, Plaintiff-Appellee Brandon Barrick filed a qui tam action against his then-employer, Defendant-Appellant Parker-Migliorini International LLC (PMI). Barrick alleged violations of the False Claims Act (FCA) and amended his complaint to include a claim that PMI unlawfully retaliated against him under the FCA. PMI was a meat exporting company based in Utah. While working for PMI, Barrick noticed two practices he believed were illegal. The first was the “Japan Triangle”: PMI exported beef to Costa Rica to a company which repackaged it, then sent it to Japan (Japan had been concerned about mad cow disease from U.S. beef). The second was the “LSW Channel”: PMI informed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) it was shipping beef to Moldova on a shipping certificate, but sent it to Hong Kong. Then, according to Barrick, PMI smuggled the beef into China (China was not then accepting U.S. beef). Barrick brought his concerns to Steve Johnson, PMI’s CFO, at least three times, telling Johnson that he was not comfortable with the practices. By October, the FBI raided PMI's office. Barrick was terminated from PMI in November 2012, as part of a company-wide reduction in force (RIF). PMI claimed the RIF was needed because in addition to the FBI raid, problems with exports and bank lines of credit put a financial strain on the company. Nine employees were terminated as part of the RIF. PMI claims it did not learn about Barrick’s cooperation with the FBI until October 2014, when the DOJ notified PMI of this qui tam action. A jury found that PMI retaliated against Barrick for his engagement in protected activity under the FCA when it terminated his employment. On appeal, PMI argued the district court improperly denied its motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL). In the alternative, PMI argued the Tenth Circuit court should order a new trial based on either the district court’s erroneous admission of evidence or an erroneous jury instruction. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed on all issues. View "Barrick v. Parker-Migliorini International" on Justia Law

Geringer Capital, Inc., Roger Geringer and Tricycle Entertainment, LLC (collectively Geringer parties) moved to preclude Jeffrey Konvitz, Blue Rider Finance, Inc.’s counsel of record, from testifying at trial in support of Blue Rider’s claim that the Geringer parties fraudulently induced Blue Rider to enter into a settlement agreement that did not accurately reflect the terms negotiated by the parties. The Geringer parties subsequently clarified that their motion should be considered, in the alternative, a motion to disqualify Konvitz. The court granted the motion and disqualified Konvitz, finding the integrity of the judicial process would be impaired if Konvitz served in dual roles. On appeal Blue Rider contends the court should have denied the motion due to the Geringer parties’ excessive delay in raising the issue.   The Second Appellate District reversed. The court concluded that Konvitz’s representation of Blue Rider at trial while also testifying on its behalf would “detract from the proper administration of justice,” the trial court quoted this general description of the basis for the advocate-witness rule, as well as comments explaining the parallel rule in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (ABA Model Rule 3.7) and in the ABA’s former Model Code of Professional Responsibility, all pointing to the conclusion that the roles of advocate and witness are inconsistent. The court then added its own observation that these dual roles create the risk of error and confusion, and “the trier of fact will constantly keep wondering whether the advocate-witness is acting under the appropriate role such that it will distract from the arguments and evidence presented.” View "Geringer v. Blue Rider Finance" on Justia Law

Ceska zbrojovka Defence SE (“CZ Czech”) was a firearms manufacturer based in the Czech Republic. To do business in the United States, it had several subsidiaries, including CZ USA, CZ Czech’s Kansas-based subsidiary. Vista Outdoor, Inc. was a Minnesota company that designed, manufactured, and marketed outdoor recreation and shooting products. In November 2018, Vista and CZ Czech entered into an expense reimbursement agreement covering CZ Czech’s potential acquisition of a Vista firearm brand. Under the contract, Vista was obligated to reimburse CZ Czech for certain reasonable expenses in connection with its evaluation and negotiation of the proposed transaction. Even though the sale was not consummated, Vista refused CZ Czech’s subsequent reimbursement demands. CZ USA, not CZ Czech, filed a federal diversity action in the District of Kansas against Vista for breach of contract. The "twist" was that there was no contract between CZ USA and Vista, nor was CZ USA a beneficiary of the contract. CZ Czech, soon realizing the mistake, attempted to amend the complaint under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and substitute itself as the party-plaintiff. The district court declined, finding that the original complaint controlled and that CZ USA, as a non-party to the contract, lacked standing to sue, meaning the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute. To this, the Tenth Circuit concurred and affirmed: the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and correctly dismissed the lawsuit. View "Ceska Zbrojovka Defence SE ("CZ") v. Vista Outdoor" on Justia Law