Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In 2011 and 2012, a number of individuals and closely held corporations known as Treasure Your Success (TYS) operated a fraudulent credit card interest reduction scheme. Universal Processing Services of Wisconsin, LLC (Universal) violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 C.F.R. 310.1 et seq., by providing substantial assistance to the TYS schemers. The district court found that a violation of the TSR constitutes an “unfair or deceptive act or practice” in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. As such, the district court was authorized to order restitution and disgorgement. Furthermore, the court clarified that substantial assistance under the TSR was itself sufficient to justify joint and several liability. The court reaffirmed its order holding Universal jointly and severally liable; Universal contended that was error and joint and several liability can only lie where the defendant is a participant in a common enterprise with the primary violators. The Eleventh Circuit concluded after review the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding Universal jointly and severally liable with the members of the TYS scheme. View "Federal Trade Comm'r v. Universal Processing Services of Wisconsin, LLC" on Justia Law

Apple shareholders filed a consolidated derivative action concerning Apple’s alleged pursuit and enforcement of anticompetitive agreements with other Silicon Valley companies to prohibit the recruitment of each other’s employees. Plaintiffs alleged that certain current and former members of Apple’s board of directors were aware of or tacitly approved of Apple’s practices and breached their fiduciary duties by permitting the illegal agreements over many years. Plaintiffs alleged that the Apple board never disclosed settlements of an earlier action filed by the Department of Justice based on violations of the federal antitrust laws and several federal class action lawsuits brought by employees of Apple and other technology companies. Given each board member’s alleged role in participating in or allowing the illegal agreements, plaintiffs claimed that any demand on Apple's board to institute the derivative action against the individual defendants should be excused as a futile and useless act. The superior court found that an amended complaint adequately alleged demand futility as to the board in place when the original action was filed. The composition of the board of directors had changed in the interim. The court of appeal disagreed. The court was required to assess demand futility as to the board in place when the amended complaint was filed. View "Apple, Inc. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The Delaware Companies challenged Delaware’s right to audit whether funds paid for stored-value gift cards issued by their Ohio-based subsidiaries are held by the Companies and subject to escheatment. Their argument relied on Supreme Court precedent establishing priority among states competing to escheat abandoned property, giving first place to the state where the property owner was last known to reside. If that residence cannot be identified or if that state has disclaimed its interest, second in line is the state where the holder of the abandoned property is incorporated; any other state is preempted from escheating the property. The Companies argued that money left unclaimed by owners of the stored-value cards is held by the Ohio Subsidiaries, so Delaware can have no legitimate escheatment claim and must be barred from auditing the Companies in connection with the gift cards. The Third Circuit held that private parties can invoke federal common law to challenge a state’s authority to escheat property but agreed that dismissal was proper. “The notion that the State cannot conduct any inquiry into abandoned property to verify a Delaware corporation’s representations regarding abandoned property lacks merit” and, to the extent the Companies challenged the scope or means of the audit, the claim is not ripe, since Delaware has taken no formal steps to compel an audit. View "Marathon Petroleum Corp v. Secretary of Finance for the State of Delaware" on Justia Law

Profit Boost Marketing, Inc., d/b/a Hometown Values Coupon Magazine ("HVCM"), one of the defendants in the underlying case, petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Marshall Circuit Court to vacate its order denying HVCM's motion to dismiss the claims filed against it by Mike Zak d/b/a Hometown Magazine ("Zak") and to direct that court to enter an order dismissing Zak's claims against it. HVCM was a Washington state based "print broker ... for direct mail advertising." Hometown Magazine was a coupon distributor; Mike Zak was its sole proprietor. In August 2013, Zak and HVCM entered into a "Print Brokerage Agreement" and related "Licensing Agreement" whereby Zak was to become an exclusive "Area Publisher" of HVCM's coupon magazine in three specified zones within Alabama. Zak obtained from the City of Arab ("the City") a business license to engage in "publishing industries." Zak ultimately published a single issue of a publication entitled Hometown Magazine. According to HVCM, "[i]nstead of publishing as [HVCM], Zak formed Hometown Magazine and used the [HVCM] trademark when he sold advertising to local business," i.e., allegedly, "Zak solicited ... clients as [HVCM], sold them advertising using the [HVCM] trademark ..., and never published a magazine as [HVCM]." This action resulted in a dispute between Zak and HCVM. As a result of a Facebook post, which Zak maintained "was entirely fallacious and possessed absolutely no truth," Zak allegedly began to receive queries from customers regarding the legality of his activities. Ultimately, according to Zak, his reputation was allegedly so "irreparably tarnished and damaged" that Zak was forced to close his business. Zak sued the City and various fictitiously named defendants. Specifically, Zak sought to recover both compensatory and punitive damages on various theories, including defamation, negligence, and "wantonness/gross negligence." After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court held the trial court erred in denying HVCM's motion requesting dismissal of Zak's claims on statute-of-limitations grounds; therefore the Court granted HVCM's petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Marshall Circuit Court to vacate its January 3, 2017, order denying HVCM's motion and to enter an order dismissing HVCM as a defendant in the underlying action. View "Ex parte Profit Boost Marketing, Inc., d/b/a Hometown Values Coupon Magazine." on Justia Law

This case presented for the Oregon Supreme Court's review the question of when, if ever, the filing of a third-party complaint constitutes the “filing of a proceeding under subsection (1)” of ORS 60.952(6), such that the shareholder of a closely-held corporation who filed the proceeding could be bought out by the corporation or another shareholder. The corporation here, Graydog Internet, Inc., had only two shareholders: Douglas Westervelt, the company’s president and majority shareholder, and David Giller, an employee and minority shareholder. Graydog initiated the underlying case, at Westervelt’s direction, when it filed a declaratory judgment action against Giller raising an issue regarding his employment. As part of his response, Giller filed a third-party complaint against Westervelt. Graydog then filed an election to purchase Giller’s shares under ORS 60.952(6). Giller objected, arguing that filing a third-party complaint did not constitute the “filing of a proceeding” as that term is used in ORS 60.952(6) and that the claims in the third-party complaint were not “under [ORS 60.952(1)].” For those reasons, Giller asserted, Graydog could not elect to purchase his shares. The Oregon Supreme Court agreed that ORS 60.952(6) did not apply to Giller’s third-party complaint, and therefore reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals which held to the contrary. View "Graydog Internet, Inc. v. Giller" on Justia Law

All Masonry & Landscape Supply (All Masonry) appealed a postjudgment order awarding attorney fees to Oldcastle, the prevailing party in a breach of contract action. Oldcastle manufactured masonry and concrete products, including its Belgard-branded concrete pavers and segmented retaining walls. All Masonry distributed landscape supplies and concrete products to customers. All Masonry claimed that in 2001, it entered into an agreement with Oldcastle to be Oldcastle's exclusive dealer of Belgard products in San Diego County. The 2001 dealer agreement was part written and part oral. In 2013, All Masonry sued Oldcastle for breaching the 2001 dealer agreement by distributing Belgard products through other dealers in San Diego County. Oldcastle prevailed on the breach of contract cause of action in 2015 when the court granted its motion for summary adjudication on that claim, rejecting All Masonry's contention that it had the exclusive right to sell Belgard at preferential pricing in San Diego County. Oldcastle filed a postjudgment motion to recover attorney fees in connection with All Masonry's breach of contract claim. The court awarded Oldcastle $180,120 in attorney fees for defending the breach of contract cause of action through summary adjudication and for litigating the postjudgment fees motion. The Court of Appeal reversed the award of attorney fees to Oldcastle, finding no clear and unequivocal evidence that the parties intended to incorporate the terms of a 2010 credit application into their 2001 dealer agreement, which was the basis of the fee award. Civil Code section 1642 does not allow the recovery of attorney fees in this case. View "R.W.L. Enterprises v. Oldcastle, Inc." on Justia Law

Former restaurant employees sued their former employer, Koji’s Japan, Inc. (Koji’s), Koji’s president, sole shareholder and director Arthur Parent, Jr. (Parent), and A.J. Parent Company, Inc., otherwise known as America’s Printer (America’s Printer), of which Parent was also the president, sole shareholder and director. The plaintiff employees alleged wage and hour claims under the federal Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), claims under the California unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, sec. 17200), and a claim under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, sec. 2699 et seq.). Considering this appeal as a petition for a writ of mandate, the Court of Appeal granted writ relief by holding: (1) the trial court erred by granting the motion to certify a class as to plaintiffs’ claims against only Koji’s because the court applied improper criteria in determining Parent’s potential liability as a joint employer on a class-wide basis; (2) the trial court prejudicially erred by denying plaintiffs’ revised motion to compel further responses to a set of document requests, and also by sanctioning plaintiffs’ counsel; (3) because the Court directed the trial court to vacate its order denying the revised motion to compel further responses to discovery on alter ego issues, the Court directed the trial court to also vacate its findings that Parent and America’s Printer were not Koji’s alter egos; and (4) although the trial court’s statement of decision correctly cited the controlling case law in this matter, the statement of decision misapplied the law as set by that case. View "Turman v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Laboratory Specialists International, Inc. (LSI) filed a complaint in Orange County Superior Court alleging causes of action against Shimadzu Scientific Instruments, Inc. (Shimadzu) for breach of contract, conversion, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with contractual relations, and intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations. LSI appealed when the trial court dismissed its lawsuit against Shimadzu under the forum selection clause in the parties’ contract. LSI contended Shimadzu erred by requesting a dismissal in its demurrer dismissal based on the forum selection clause, rather than by a separate motion, and that the trial court erred by granting Shimadzu leave to recast its request for dismissal in a separate motion. In the alternative, LSI argued the court erred by: (1) dismissing LSI’s tort claims, which LSI argued did not arise out of or “pertain[]” to the parties’ contract; (2) finding the forum selection clause mandated Maryland as the proper fourm, rather than conducting an analysis under discretionary forum non conveniens factors; and (3) dismissing rather than staying LSI’s lawsuit. As we explain, these contentions are without merit, and we therefore affirm the court’s dismissal order. View "Laboratory Specialists International v. Shimadzu Scientific etc." on Justia Law

Rule 12A, contained in Order 15 of the Cayman Islands Grand Court Rules 1995, is procedural and therefore does not apply where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to litigate his derivative claims in New York.Plaintiff owned ordinary shares in Scottish Re Group, Limited, a Cayman Islands company formerly engaged in the business of reinsurance. Plaintiff asserted both direct and derivative causes of action against Scottish Re and others. The only claims relevant to this appeal were Plaintiff’s derivative claims. Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiff’s derivative causes of action, ruling that, under Cayman Islands law, Plaintiff had not established standing because he did not seek leave of court to commence a derivative action under Rule 12A of the Rules of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands. The Appellate Division affirmed based on Plaintiff’s noncompliance with Rule 12A, concluding that the rule applied because it was substantive rather than procedural. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Plaintiff’s derivative claims should not have been dismissed on the ground that he failed to comply with Rule 12A where Rule 12A is a procedural rule that does not apply in New York courts. View "Davis v. Scottish Re Group Ltd." on Justia Law

Objector-Appellant Dale Hefner appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for settlement-related discovery, approval of the settlement agreement, and order regarding attorneys’ fees. This case concerns the settlement agreement and attorneys’ fees related to two separate shareholder derivative suits on behalf of SandRidge Energy Inc. (“SandRidge”) against its directors. The first of those actions was filed in federal district court in January 2013. The federal derivative suit alleged self-dealing, usurpation of corporate opportunities, and misappropriation by Tom Ward, SandRidge’s founding CEO, and entities affiliated with him. Hefner filed the second derivative suit was filed in Oklahoma state court in 2013. The director-defendants moved the state court to stay the action pending a resolution in the federal case, or in the alternative to dismiss the suit entirely. Hefner objected, and the state court stayed the action but denied the motion to dismiss. In 2014, the state court entered a stipulated and agreed to order granting SandRidge’s motion to stay. Then in 2015, the federal district court granted a preliminary approval of a partial settlement in the federal suit. Hefner (1) filed a contingent motion for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses, (2) objected to the settlement, and (3) requested additional settlement-related discovery. The district court denied Hefner’s motion for additional discovery and, after a hearing on the other matters, entered a final order and judgment approving the proposed partial settlement and denying the request for attorneys’ fees. While the appeal was pending before the Tenth Circuit, SandRidge filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. SandRidge gave notice of the bankruptcy court’s approval of the company’s plan of reorganization and filed a contemporaneous motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, contending that because company stock was cancelled as part of the bankruptcy, Hefner did not have standing to pursue a shareholder derivative claim; the relevant derivative claims were released and discharged as part of the reorganization, and the right to pursue derivative litigation vested in reorganized SandRidge. The Tenth Circuit agreed that Hefner's claims were moot, and finding no other reversible error, it appealed. View "Elliot v. Ward" on Justia Law