Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court centered on proceedings to determine the fair value of shares in a closely held corporation. The primary question presented was whether the respondents, shareholders who disagreed with the corporation's estimate of that fair value, presented sufficient evidence to defeat the corporation's motion for summary judgment. Secondarily, the Court was asked to decide whether the trial court properly awarded attorney and expert fees to the corporation. After review, the Supreme Court held that respondents did not provide sufficient evidence to defeat the corporation's motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, the Court held respondents did not act in a manner that justified the trial court's award of fees to the corporation. Therefore, the Court of Appeals was reversed as to the summary judgment issue and affirmed as to the fees. View "SentinelC3 v. Hunt" on Justia Law

In this case and its companion, LK Operating, LLC v. Collection Grp., LLC,(No. 88132-4), the central issues on appeal arose from a joint venture agreement regarding a debt collection business. The debt collection business operated according to the terms of the joint venture agreement, as originally proposed, from approximately winter 2005 through summer 2007. In this opinion, the issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of equitable indemnification (known as the "ABC Rule") to hold that the legal malpractice plaintiffs here suffered no compensable damages as a matter of law and that summary judgment dismissal was appropriate. "Where the only damages claimed by a legal malpractice plaintiff are attorney fees incurred in a separate litigation and the only legal basis on which plaintiff asserts those fees are compensable is the ABC Rule, then the defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissal if the ABC Rule does not apply to the undisputed facts as a matter of law." That was the situation presented in this case, and as such, affirmed the trial court. View "LK Operating, LLC v. Collection Grp., LLC" on Justia Law

Carl McIntyre, Destiny McIntyre (through her guardian ad litem), Theresa McIntyre, and My Jeweler, Inc. appealed a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of The Colonies-Pacific, LLC. Colonies owns the Colonies Crossroads shopping center in Upland. The common areas of the shopping center were under Colonies's exclusive control, but maintenance expenses were chargeable to tenants on a pro rata basis. Initially, Colonies did not budget anything for security services. McIntyre owned a jewelry business called My Jeweler. In January 2006, two stores in Colonies Crossroads were robbed at gunpoint, eight days apart. In May 2006, there was a shoplifting incident at another store, which police reportedly classified as a robbery because it resulted in a physical altercation in which the perpetrator pulled out a knife. After the first two robberies, McIntyre expressed concern several times about the lack of security to Leanne Meissner, an employee of Colonies's property management company. Meissner reported the robberies to her superior, but Colonies decided not to provide security or seek anchor tenants' approval of an expense for security. Rather, Colonies asked the Upland Police Department to "step up the patrol through the center" because it believed "the police are much more capable than the . . . private security force." McIntyre took his then 14-year-old daughter, Destiny, to work with him at the Colonies Crossroads store on summer morning in 2006. Shortly after the store opened, three men entered. Despite offering his cooperation, the men severely pistol whipped McIntyre, and one of them tied up Destiny and held a gun to her head. The men shattered glass display cases and stole jewelry, cash and digital security recording equipment. After this robbery, Colonies hired a security service to provide an unarmed guard to patrol the common areas of the shopping center. The McIntyres sued Colonies for negligence and premises liability, a species of negligence. At the beginning of trial, Colonies brought a motion in limine under section 1151 to exclude evidence of subsequent remedial measures. The McIntyres argued section 1151 was inapplicable because they did not intend to use the evidence to show Colonies was negligent by breaching its duty of care, but rather to show the lack of a security patrol was the cause of the robbery. The McIntyres contended the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the evidence. Alternatively, the McIntyres contended the court abused its discretion by not admitting the evidence as rebuttal to a comment Colonies's attorney made during opening statement. The Court of Appeal found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the judgment.View "McIntyre v. The Colonies-Pacific" on Justia Law

Fellowes filed a breach-of-contract suit against Changzou Fellowes, a business established in China, under the international diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(2). Without discussing subject-matter jurisdiction, the district court entered a preliminary injunction in favor of Fellowes, despite the court’s assumption that Changzhou Fellowes had not been served with process. The Seventh Circuit vacated, reasoning that diversity jurisdiction is proper only if Changzhou Fellowes has its own citizenship, independent of its investors or members. Deciding whether a business enterprise based in a foreign nation should be treated as a corporation for the purpose of section 1332 can be difficult. Given the parties’ agreement that Changzhou Fellowes is closer to a limited liability company than to any other business structure in the U.S., it does not have its own citizenship and it does have the Illinois citizenship of its member Hong Kong Fellowes, which prevents litigation under the diversity jurisdiction. View "Fellowes Inc. v. Changzhou Xinrui Fellowes Office Equip. Co." on Justia Law

TechnoMarine holds various trademark and copyright registrations for its word mark, logo, and watch dial. At issue in this appeal was whether a prior litigation between TechnoMarine and Giftports resolving claims of trademark infringement and other unfair business practices, and stemming from earlier conduct, bars the present suit of TechnoMarine over similar conduct that occurred after the settlement of the earlier suit. The court concluded that res judicata did not bar the trademark and other unfair business practice claims that arose after the original settlement agreement between the parties; the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint on the alternative basis that TechnoMarine failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted where TechnoMarine failed plausibly to plead its claims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, tortious interference, unfair competition, or copyright infringement; and the court affirmed the district court's denial of TechnoMarine's request to amend its complaint because TechnoMarine failed to indicate how further amendment would cure its pleading deficiencies. View "Technomarine SA v. Giftports, Inc." on Justia Law

Expedia (and several other hotel booking websites, collectively, "Petitioners") has been subject to approximately 80 underlying lawsuits by states, counties, and municipalities (collectively, taxing authorities) for purportedly failing to collect the right amount of local occupancy taxes from its hotel customers. Expedia tendered most of the suits to its insurer, Zurich, although some were tendered late. Zurich refused to defend Expedia on a number of grounds, including late tender and that the underlying suits may be excluded from the policies' coverage. The trial court declined to make a determination of Zurich's duty to defend Expedia, instead ordering discovery that Expedia claimed was prejudicial to the underlying actions. Petitioners sought adjudication of their summary judgment motion concerning their respective insurers' duty to defend them in cases brought by local taxing authorities. They further requested a stay of discovery in the coverage action that could prejudice them in the underlying litigation. Upon review of the matter, the Washington Supreme Court held that the trial court erred by delaying adjudication of Zurich's duty to defend Expedia. Accordingly, the Court vacated the trial court's order. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine Zurich's duty to defend Expedia in each of the 54 underlying cases subject to Expedia's motion. The trial court was furthermore ordered to stay discovery in the coverage action until it could make a factual determination as to which parts of discovery are potentially prejudicial to Expedia in the underlying actions. View "Expedia, Inc. v. Steadfast Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Shelter Mutual Property Insurance Company retained Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. to provide an engineering evaluation and expert witness services in connection with its defense of litigation resulting from a claim for hurricane damages brought by a corporation insured by Shelter. Rimkus sent Shelter a letter confirming the engagement and indicating Rimkus' services were subject to “Terms and Conditions” attached to the letter. The “Terms and Conditions” included a forum selection clause which required venue for any suits arising out of the contract to be in Harris County, Texas. When a dispute arose, Shelter filed suit against Rimkus in the 15th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Lafayette. Rimkus filed an exception of improper venue, arguing the forum selection clause included in its “Terms and Conditions” required suit to be brought in Texas. Shelter opposed the exception, arguing it never agreed to the unilateral “Terms and Conditions” and thus they were not part of the agreement between the parties.The Louisiana Supreme Court granted this writ application to resolve a split in the circuit courts of appeal regarding whether forum selection clauses were per se violative of public policy in Louisiana. Answering that question in the negative, it reversed the rulings of the lower courts. View "Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Freed and Weiss were the sole managing members of a legal practice, CLG. Freed claims to have provided CLG’s operating capital through loans of $12 million. Under the partnership agreement between the two, Freed was entitled to repayment before CLG could make distributions to other members. According to Freed, shortly after he received partial repayment from CLG in 2011, Weiss began taking steps to terminate Freed’s control of CLG and to create a new limited liability company without him, by moving CLG funds held by Chase into other accounts, to which Freed lacked access. Freed demanded that Chase freeze CLG accounts. Freed contends that Chase employees informed Weiss, who then removed all funds from Chase. Freed sued Weiss in state court, alleging improprieties primarily regarding access to records and funds, breach of fiduciary duties and of the partnership agreement, and seeking a declaration of voluntary termination of CLG. Weiss counterclaimed, seeking to expel Freed from CLG. Freed sued Chase claiming that Chase facilitated Weiss’s unauthorized transfer, tortious interference with contractual rights, and aiding Weiss’s breaches of fiduciary duties. The suit was removed to federal court and Chase brought third-party claims for indemnity or contribution. Freed filed suit in federal court against Weiss, his father, and CLG, asking the court to force CLG to purchase Freed’s distributional interest. The district court found that abstention in the federal court cases was proper and stayed both pending the outcome of the state court proceedings. The Seventh Circuit agreed.View "Freed v. Weiss" on Justia Law

In 2009, Joseph Pierce filed suit against Steven McMullen and Highland Financial, LLC, seeking damages for various violations of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act and for breach of contract, all based upon an alleged scam in which the Defendants represented that they could protect Pierce from losing his equity in real property that was facing foreclosure. Pierce alleged that the Defendants obtained title to his real property pursuant to a promise to assume the loans secured by the property, to market and sell the property, and to pay him at least $50,000 or more from the sale proceeds, depending upon the sale price. He claimed that he deeded the property to the Defendants, that they failed to make the payments on the loans, and that the property was sold at a foreclosure sale. The complaint also alleged that Highland Financial was the alter ego of McMullen. Defendants did not appear, and on August 6, 2010, the court entered default against them. Mr. Pierce filed his amended complaint on May 11, 2011. The complaint simply added allegations to support an award of punitive damages. On June 13, 2011, Mr. McMullen filed a notice of appearance on behalf of himself and on behalf of Highland Financial. McMullen filed an answer to the amended complaint in his behalf and on the behalf of Highland Financial. McMullen was not licensed to practice law in Idaho, therefore his appearance on behalf of Highland Financial and the answer he filed on its behalf were nullities. In his answer, McMullen only denied the allegations regarding punitive damages. The case was scheduled for trial to commence on June 18, 2012. Plaintiff appeared with counsel, but the Defendants again did not appear. After discussion with Pierce’s counsel, the district court stated that McMullen "is defaulted, his answer is stricken, and the plaintiff prevails on their [sic] claims," then asked Pierce to present evidence as to damages. Pierce testified as did another alleged victim of. McMullen. At the conclusion of the testimony, Pierce’s counsel filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and a trial brief. The district court then issued its memorandum decision holding that. Pierce failed to prove any of his claims and ordered that his amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Pierce timely appealed. Largely because Defendants failed to appear and failed to answer the complaint and the facts of this case were therefore undisputed, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in holding that Pierce did not prove his case. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Pierce v. McMullen" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a Ralston Purina Company shareholder when Ralston and Nestle Holdings, Inc. entered into a merger agreement providing that, at the time of the merger, Ralston stock would be converted and Ralson shareholders would receive payments. Plaintiff was not paid until four days after the stock was converted. Ten years later, Plaintiff filed a class action petition alleging that Nestle breached the agreement by failing to timely pay shareholders. The trial court dismissed the petition as barred by the five-year statute of limitations in Mo. Rev. Stat. 516.120(1), which applies to all actions upon contracts except those mentioned in Mo. Rev. Stat. 516.110. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by not applying the ten-year statute of limitations in section 516.110, which applies to all actions “upon any writing…for the payment of money.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the five-year statute applied in this case; and (2) Plaintiff’s argument that his petition was timely because the five-year limitations period was tolled by a pending class action against Nestle in another state was without merit. View "Rolwing v. Nestle Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law