Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In 2010, Yan Chen, who had a business interest in a restaurant, entered into a 10-year lease agreement with Russell Realty, LLC, and MRT, LLC. The property to be leased was located in Greenville. The lease agreement was drafted by Russell Realty and contained an arbitration clause. In 2012, Russell Realty and MRT sued Chen along with Qiaoyun He, Joe Zou, and Yami Buffet, Inc., alleging breach of contract. Chen filed a response to the motion, alleging that she had been in China for a few months, and that she had not been personally served with notice of the lawsuit. She subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the lease agreement contained an arbitration clause and that "said complaint[] fails to state any measures that have been taken in lieu of the fulfillment of such agreed Arbitration Clause." The trial court denied both Russell Realty and MRT's motion for a default judgment and Chen's motion to dismiss. About a month after this, Chen filed a motion to compel arbitration, asserting that, as "part of Plaintiffs['] lease agreement, plaintiff[s] agreed to binding arbitration. In 2013, Chen filed a second motion to dismiss, alleging that Russell Realty and MRT had refused to mediate and had refused to arbitrate. Russell Realty and MRT filed an objection to Chen's second motion to dismiss, asserting that "time of the stay set by the court has almost expired and Defendant Yan Chen has not made any movement, act, or effort to seek Arbitration to resolve the issues." Russell Realty and MRT again sought a default judgment against the defendants, including Chen. She asserted that counsel for Russell Realty and MRT had failed to respond to her attempts to seek a settlement before the hiring of a mediator or arbitrator and that, subsequently, she had contacted a mediator/arbitrator and Russell Realty and MRT had not responded to her choice of mediator/arbitrator. The trial court then entered an order stating that the Chen's appeal was moot as the court had not yet entered a final order. In early 2015, the trial court entered an order awarding Russell Realty and MRT $682,050.10 against all the defendants, including Chen, jointly and severally. Chen appealed. Based on its review of the facts in the circuit court record, the Supreme Court reversed with regard to Chen and remanded the case for the trial court to enter an order requiring arbitration in accordance with the terms of the lease agreement. View "Chen v. Russell Realty, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Michael Bandler and MB&Co, Ltd. ("corporation") filed an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's ruling that Bandler, a non-attorney, could not represent corporation in this case. Bandler was the sole shareholder and president of corporation. Bandler sued Charter One Bank, raising several claims based on the bank's alleged failure to honor advertising promises and other representations in connection with a checking account. He argued that the trial court violated his due-process rights by ruling on the basis of the parties' respective written submissions on the issue of representation without giving him prior notice of its concerns about his representation so that he could respond "by way of papers [or] argument" before the trial court issued its ruling. Having "serious concerns about Mr. Bandler's ability to present the Corporation's claims in this case," the trial court concluded that allowing Bandler to represent corporation would be unduly burdensome to the court. The Supreme Court disagreed with plaintiffs' contention on appeal, finding the trial court acted within its discretion in deciding the pending motions without a hearing or argument and without soliciting further written argument from plaintiffs. View "Bandler v. Cohen Rosenthal & Kramer, LLP" on Justia Law

Defendants were in the business of processing and selling industrial wood products and maintained a large inventory at numerous distribution centers throughout the United States. In 2002, defendants and plaintiffs entered into an asset purchase agreement (PA), which provided for the merger of the two companies, changes in personnel, and until plaintiffs' purchase of an inventory unit, plaintiffs, for a fee, would provide defendants with "all management and administrative services associated with purchasing, processing, and maintaining [defendants'] inventory." In 2003, plaintiffs' books were audited by a certified public accountant, Schmidt. Schmidt found unusual entries in the books and many entries that did not appear to be related to normal inventory activity. After Schmidt completed his work on defendants' books, the bookkeeper who was employed by plaintiffs but was providing inventory-related services to defendants, was discovered to have embezzled at least $360,000 from defendants' accounts. Three legal actions (including this case) ensued. The issue on review in this case was whether the trial court erred in denying defendants' motion for a new trial under ORCP 64 (B)(4),2 based on the asserted ground of newly discovered evidence. The trial court determined that defendants' proffered evidence did not satisfy the legal standard for granting a new trial under that rule. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that defendants' post-trial proffer qualified as newly discovered evidence, that the evidence was material for defendants, and that defendants exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to produce the evidence at trial. Because the Supreme Court concluded that, irrespective of whether the proffered evidence was newly discovered and material for defendants, defendants failed to exercise reasonable diligence to produce the evidence at trial. Ultimately, the Court concluded the trial court did not err in denying defendants' motion for a new trial. View "Greenwood Products v. Greenwood Forest Products" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a scheduling order issued by the magistrate judge that included a report of the parties’ discovery conference, the initial date agreed for disclosures was April 6, 2011. It was undisputed that plaintiff Sun River had a "D&O" insurance policy, which potentially covered securities-related counterclaims asserted by defendants, thus requiring Sun River to disclose the policy pursuant to the scheduling order. No disclosure of the policy was made until eighteen months later, only after counsel for defendants repeatedly pressed the issue based on other information raising suspicions of an undisclosed policy, and then filed a motion to compel its production. By that time coverage under this “claims made” policy had lapsed. When the omission came to light, defendants moved for an order sanctioning Sun River under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) by dismissing Sun River’s claims against defendants and entering a default judgment for defendants on their counterclaims against Sun River. The magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing on the motion, taking testimony from Sun River's former attorneys, in-house counsel James Pennington and outside counsel (and counsel-of-record) Stephen Csajaghy regarding events surrounding their failure to timely disclose the policy. The magistrate judge ultimately recommended that the motion for sanctions be granted insofar as it sought a default judgment against Sun River on defendants’ counterclaims, but denied insofar as it sought dismissal of Sun River’s claims against defendants, which were not affected by the operative nondisclosure. The district court agreed with the magistrate judge about counsel’s performance with respect to disclosure of the D&O Policy, but concluded that Sun River should not be held responsible in the matter. Instead, the district court decided counsel were culpable for the disclosure violation and should be held personally liable for the attorney fees expended by defendants in pursuing the motion for sanctions. The attorneys moved for reconsideration, arguing: (1) Rule 37(c) did not authorize sanctions on counsel; (2) counsel acted with substantial justification, precluding the imposition of sanctions; (3) any sanction should have been imposed on Sun River, Pennington’s employer at the time of the initial nondisclosure, rather than on counsel; and (4) due process precluded the imposition of a sanction on Csajaghy, who had withdrawn and was not present at a July 2013 pretrial conference when the district court redirected the focus of the requested sanction from Sun River to counsel. The district court reaffirmed the sanction against both counsel and reduced it to judgment. The Tenth Circuit reversed as to the sanction against Pennington, and affirmed it against Csajaghy. While the district court found that the failure to disclose the insurance policy was not substantially justified, it did not find that Pennington acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Csajaghy’s unfounded assumption about Pennington’s review of the D&O Policy was insufficient to establish a substantial justification for his failure to disclose the policy. View "Sun River Energy v. Nelson" on Justia Law

In April 2013, plaintiffs filed a complaint in Utah state court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint sought a declaration as to the authority of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (the "Tribe") over non-Indian businesses operating on certain categories of land. It also alleged that Dino Cesspooch, Jackie LaRose, and Sheila Wopsock (individuals affiliated with the Ute Tribal Employment Rights Office ("UTERO")), had harassed and extorted plaintiffs in violation of state law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in state court by way of a special appearance, arguing that service of process had been insufficient, that the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in the absence of a valid waiver of tribal sovereign immunity, that the Tribe and its officers were immune from suit but were necessary and indispensable parties, and that plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies in tribal court. Cesspooch and LaRose were properly served. Two attorneys for the defendants moved for pro hac vice admissions. The motions were granted. Following a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the state court ordered further briefing on whether defendants' motion constituted a general appearance and authorized substituted service on the Tribe and Wopsock. The court then granted plaintiffs' motion to file an amended complaint adding additional defendants. The Tribe, Cesspooch, LaRose, and Wopsock were served the amended complaint. The Tribe filed a notice of removal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. In its notice, the Tribe stated that Cesspooch, LaRose, and Wopsock consented to removal, and that the remaining defendants would consent. The remaining defendants (save one) filed consent and joinders to removal. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that the initial defendants waived their right to removal (or to consent to removal) by litigating in state court, removal was untimely, the defendants had not unanimously consented to removal, and that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion to remand. The Tribe appealed the remand order. The Tenth Circuit dismissed this appeal, finding that under 28 U.S.C. 1447(d), a district court order remanding a case to state court was "not reviewable on appeal or otherwise." Further, the Court held that a district court order remanding because the defendants did not unanimously join or consent to removal was patently "not reviewable." In addition, the Court concluded that the remand order in this case was colorably characterized as being based on lack of unanimity. View "Harvey v. Ute Indian Tribe" on Justia Law

Kivisto, co-founder and former President and CEO of SemCrude, an Oklahoma-based oil and gas company, allegedly drove SemCrude into bankruptcy through his self-dealing and speculative trading strategies. SemCrude’s Litigation Trust sued Kivisto, and the parties reached a settlement agreement and granted a mutual release of all claims. A month later, a group of SemCrude’s former limited partners (Oklahoma Plaintiffs) sued Kivisto in state court, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware granted Kivisto’s emergency motion to enjoin the state action, finding that the Oklahoma Plaintiffs’ claims derived from the Litigation Trust’s claims. The district court reversed, concluding that the claims were possibly direct and remanded. The Third Circuit concluded that the claims are derivative and reversed. Even if Kivisto owed the Oklahoma Plaintiffs unique, individual fiduciary duties in addition to the duties owed to them as unitholders, they could show neither that they were injured separately from the company or all other unitholders on the basis of that misconduct, nor that they were entitled to recovery of the units they allegedly would not have contributed or would have sold but for Kivisto’s misconduct. View "In re: Semcrude L.P." on Justia Law

The class action complaint at the heart of this case alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 based on Dick’s alleged practice of requesting personal information from consumers during credit card transactions. The litigants reached a settlement providing for class members to receive vouchers for discounts off any merchandise purchases. The initial complaint listed Plaintiff’s counsel of record as California attorney Sean Reis of the law firm of Edelson McGuire, LLP, and several out-of-state attorneys with the notation “[p]ro hac vice admittance to be sought.” The out-of-state attorneys included Joseph Siprut of Siprut PC in Chicago, Illinois. Reis signed the complaint and signed an amended complaint filed in June 2011. While accepting responsibility for monitoring the pro hac vice application, Reis was not aware the application had been denied and assumed the application had been granted. Once the proposed class action settlement had been reached, the parties set a hearing date for an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. While preparing for this hearing, Siprut and his staff reviewed the file and were unable to locate an order granting the pro hac vice application. After learning of the status of the pro hac vice application, Reis filed a new application to admit Siprut pro hac vice. The trial court issued a tentative ruling denying the second pro hac vice application. Citing rule 9.40(b) of the California Rules of Court, the court stated that application would be denied due to the “great number of pro hac vice applications” that Joseph Siprut had made during the past year. Siprut appeared at a December 2012 hearing along with Todd Atkins, an attorney from Siprut PC, who was a member of the California State Bar. Reis did not appear. The court, affirming the tentative ruling, denied the pro hac vice application on the ground that Siprut had made 12 pro hac vice applications in the prior 11 months and there were no special circumstances under rule 9.40(b) of the California Rules of Court which would support granting the application. Reis ultimately filed a consent to associate Atkins as counsel of record for plaintiff. Upon settlement of the class, plaintiff's counsel moved for fees. The trial court found that two of a class of 232,000 submitted claims for the merchandise credit. The court could find “absolutely no benefit really to anybody based on your claims record” and noted that most of the attorney fees sought were incurred by two out-of-state attorneys who had never been admitted pro hac vice. Final approval was granted to the settlement. In a supplemental briefing, plaintiff's counsel suggested the court grant Sirput's pro has vice application for admission nunc pro tunc to the date of first application. Counsel's application for fees was ultimately denied, and on appeal, argued the trial court erred in denying the total amount ($210,000) of fees. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's award of $11,000. The Court further affirmed the trial court's decision to reduct the amount of the plaintiff incentive award. View "Golba v. Dick's Sporting Goods" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their putative shareholder derivative actions against Facebook and its directors and lead underwriters. Plaintiffs alleged that Facebook’s directors breached duties owed to the company because its Registration Statement failed to disclose the mid‐quarter impact of mobile usage on the company’s projected growth. The court concluded that it was not error for the district court to decide, as a threshold matter, whether plaintiffs adequately pleaded contemporaneous share ownership, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1. The court affirmed the judgment because none of the putative plaintiffs satisfied this requirement. The court did not reach the additional bases for dismissal raised by the district court or Facebook. View "In re Facebook, Inc. IPO Derivative Litig." on Justia Law

In 2013, hackers attacked Neiman Marcus and stole the credit card numbers of its customers. In December 2013, the company learned that some of its customers had found fraudulent charges on their cards. On January 10, 2014, it publicly announced that the cyberattack had occurred and that between July 16 and October 30, 2013, and approximately 350,000 cards had been exposed to the hackers’ malware. Customers filed suit under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). The district court dismissed, ruling that the individual plaintiffs and the class lacked Article III standing. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that the plaintiffs identified some particularized, concrete, redress able injuries, as a result of the data breach. View "Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC" on Justia Law

By quitclaim deed, 27 acres in Branson passed to Tori, Inc. Tori was dissolved, and, by quitclaim transactions, Rea acquired the land. Rea quitclaimed to Missouri Branson. Coverdell also claims ownership, based on a 1999 quitclaim from Tori. Coverdell's claim spurred state lawsuits, funded by Elfant, a businessman, who operates a Delaware LLC, Nekome, from his Florida home. In 2013, Missouri state courts rejected Coverdell's claim. In 2014, Nekome acquired Missouri Branson, days after receiving tax advice that merging Missouri Branson into an out-of-state corporation would avoid Missouri state taxes. Nekome became the sole member in a newly form company, Florida Branson. Missouri Branson merged into Florida Branson, transferring Missouri's claim of ownership to Florida. Days later, Florida Branson filed suit in federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction based on its Florida citizenship and the defendants’ Missouri citizenships, and alleging that the city, the electric company, and developers infringed on its rights by breaking ground on its land in 2004, to develop Branson Landing, a mixed-use retail, residential, and entertainment complex. Elfant admits that the only business that Florida Branson conducts consists of directing and funding the lawsuits." The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal, finding that Florida Branson's corporate maneuvers were done to manufacture diversity in violation of 28 U.S.C. 1359 and that the purported tax purpose for merging was pretextual. View "Branson Label, Inc. v. City of Branson" on Justia Law