Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

LCPFV, LLC owned a warehouse with a faulty sewer pipe and hired Rapid Plumbing to fix it for $47,883.40. Rapid's work was unsatisfactory, so LCPFV hired another plumber for $44,077 to redo the job. LCPFV sued Rapid, its employee Marco Lopez, and the owner Abbas Pournahavandi. Rapid initially responded but later defaulted. LCPFV sought a default judgment of $1,081,263.80, including $308,376.75 in attorney fees and $500,000 in punitive damages. The trial court awarded a default judgment of $120,319.22, including attorney fees and other costs, and $11,852.90 in sanctions.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, presided by Judge Mark V. Mooney, reviewed the case. The court rejected LCPFV's excessive default judgment request and awarded a more reasonable sum. The court also denied LCPFV's motion for additional sanctions and reduced the attorney fee request significantly, citing the simplicity of the case and the lack of opposition from the defendants.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, agreeing that the trial court acted appropriately as a gatekeeper in scrutinizing the default judgment package. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision to reject the use of requests for admissions as evidence of fraud, reduce the attorney fee award, and limit the sanctions. The court also agreed with the trial court's decision to award prejudgment interest from the date of the lawsuit filing rather than from the date of payment to Rapid.The main holding is that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in awarding a reasonable default judgment, reducing attorney fees, and limiting sanctions, while ensuring that only appropriate claims were granted. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in all respects. View "LCPFV v. Somatdary Inc." on Justia Law

Aleksia Lindsay filed an amended class action complaint against Patenaude & Felix, APC, and Transworld Systems Inc., alleging unfair debt collection practices. Lindsay had defaulted on $60,000 in student loans, and after receiving incomplete and inaccurate information from Transworld, Patenaude initiated two debt collection lawsuits against her. Lindsay later discovered that both entities had a history of unethical collection practices, leading to actions by various regulatory bodies. After the lawsuits against her were dismissed, Lindsay received another demand for payment and subsequently filed the class action complaint.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County struck Lindsay's complaint, relying on the anti-SLAPP law, and ruled that the public interest exception did not apply. Lindsay argued that the trial court erred in this decision. The trial court concluded that although the three conditions of the public interest exception were met, the action was not brought solely in the public interest because Lindsay sought damages.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court held that the action was brought solely in the public interest or on behalf of the general public, as the relief sought by Lindsay was identical to that sought for the plaintiff class. The court also found that seeking damages did not preclude the application of the public interest exception. The court concluded that the action met all three conditions of the public interest exception: it did not seek greater or different relief, it would enforce an important right affecting the public interest and confer a significant benefit, and private enforcement was necessary and placed a disproportionate financial burden on Lindsay.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order, exempting Lindsay's action from the anti-SLAPP law and entitling her to costs on appeal. View "Lindsay v. Patenaude & Felix" on Justia Law

JHVS Group, LLC and its members, Jasanjot Singh and Harshana Kaur, purchased a 66.4-acre pistachio orchard from Shawn Slate and Dina Slate for approximately $2.6 million. The Slates agreed to carry a loan for $1,889,600, and JHVS made a $700,000 down payment. The agreement included provisions for interest payments and additional payments coinciding with expected crop payments. JHVS alleged that the Slates and their brokers, Randy Hayer and SVN Executive Commercial Advisors, misrepresented material facts about the property, including water rights and the value of the 2022 crop. JHVS claimed the actual value of the crop was significantly lower than represented, and they fell behind on payments, leading the Slates to record a notice of default.JHVS filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Madera County, raising seven causes of action, including breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, intentional fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, rescission based on fraud or mutual mistake, and injunctive relief to stop the foreclosure process. JHVS filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the foreclosure sale, arguing that the Slates and Hayer had lied about water restrictions and misrepresented the crop's value. The trial court granted the preliminary injunction after the defendants did not appear or file a response.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and found that the trial court lacked fundamental jurisdiction over the Slates because they were never served with the summons and complaint. The appellate court determined that the trial court's order was void as to the Slates due to the lack of proper service and reversed the preliminary injunction order with respect to the Slates. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "JHVS Group, LLC v. Slate" on Justia Law

Erin Hughes, the plaintiff, obtained two homeowner’s insurance policies for her property in Malibu. One policy, through the California FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan), covered fire loss, while the other, issued by Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers), did not. After a fire caused significant damage to her property, Hughes filed a lawsuit against Farmers, alleging it was vicariously liable for the negligence of its agent, Maritza Hartnett, who assisted her in obtaining the FAIR Plan policy, resulting in underinsurance for fire loss.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Farmers’ motion for summary judgment, ruling that Hartnett was not acting within the scope of her agency with Farmers when she assisted Hughes in obtaining the FAIR Plan policy. The court also denied Hughes’s motion for leave to amend her complaint.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that Hartnett was not acting as Farmers’ actual or ostensible agent when she helped Hughes obtain the FAIR Plan policy. The court found that Hartnett’s agent appointment agreement with Farmers did not include authority to transact insurance business on behalf of Farmers for policies issued by unrelated carriers like FAIR Plan. Additionally, the court determined that Hughes failed to present evidence showing that Farmers’ conduct could have led her to reasonably believe Hartnett was acting as its agent in procuring the FAIR Plan policy. The court also upheld the trial court’s denial of Hughes’s motion for leave to amend her complaint, citing her failure to provide an excuse for the delay in filing the motion and the potential prejudice to Farmers. View "Hughes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Junhai Bai and Xiaofei Li, filed a lawsuit against the San Francisco Unified School District and teacher Stephanie Yip, alleging that their minor daughter, L.B., was physically abused by Yip. The complaint detailed incidents of abuse, including insufficient food and water, physical assault, and resulting injuries such as a concussion and chest contusion. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages for mental harm, impairment of working ability, future illness risk compensation, and family care.The San Francisco City & County Superior Court sustained the defendants' unopposed demurrer and granted their unopposed motion to strike portions of the complaint, allowing leave to amend but without specifying a deadline. Plaintiffs filed a revised version of their complaint several weeks after the time to amend had expired. The trial court did not consider this filing as an amended complaint. Defendants then moved to dismiss the action under section 581, subdivisions (f)(2) and (f)(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which the court granted.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that under the decision in Gitmed v. General Motors Corp., the filing of an amended complaint, even if untimely, precludes dismissal under section 581, subdivision (f)(2), unless and until the amended complaint is stricken. The court found that the plaintiffs' revised pleading should have been treated as an amended complaint, which should have precluded the dismissal of the action. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment and the order granting the motion to dismiss, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Bai v. Yip" on Justia Law

Ashley Howell, a temporary pre-licensed psychiatric technician, was employed by the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) from January 2, 2020, to January 24, 2020. Howell was terminated after DSH discovered she was on medical leave from her previous job due to a 2017 sexual assault, which she did not disclose during her pre-employment health screening. Howell filed a lawsuit against DSH, claiming mental and physical disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).The Napa County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of DSH on Howell’s claims for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process. Howell dismissed her claim for failure to prevent discrimination. The jury found in favor of Howell on her mental disability discrimination claim, awarding her $36,751.25 in lost earnings and health insurance benefits but nothing for pain and suffering. The court denied Howell’s motion for a new trial on non-economic damages and granted DSH’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, striking the award for lost health insurance benefits. Howell was awarded $135,102 in attorney fees and costs but did not receive a ruling on her request for prejudgment interest.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny Howell’s motion for a new trial and to grant DSH’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court found that Howell did not provide evidence of out-of-pocket expenses for lost health insurance benefits. The court also upheld the trial court’s award of $135,102 in attorney fees and costs, finding Howell’s request for $1.75 million to be unreasonable. However, the appellate court remanded the case for the trial court to address Howell’s request for prejudgment interest. View "Howell v. State Dept. of State Hospitals" on Justia Law

Erin Hughes, the plaintiff, obtained two homeowner’s insurance policies for her property in Malibu. One policy, through the California FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan), covered fire loss, while the other, issued by Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers), did not. After a fire caused significant damage to her property, Hughes filed a lawsuit against Farmers, alleging it was vicariously liable for the negligence of its agent, Maritza Hartnett, who assisted her in obtaining the FAIR Plan policy, resulting in underinsurance for fire loss.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Farmers’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that Hartnett was not acting within the scope of her agency with Farmers when she assisted Hughes in obtaining the FAIR Plan policy. The court also denied Hughes’s motion for leave to amend her complaint.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that Hartnett was not acting as Farmers’ actual or ostensible agent when she helped Hughes obtain the FAIR Plan policy. The court found that Hartnett was acting as an independent broker for the FAIR Plan policy and not on behalf of Farmers. Additionally, the court determined that Hughes failed to present evidence that could establish a triable issue regarding Farmers’ vicarious liability for Hartnett’s actions.The court also upheld the trial court’s denial of Hughes’s motion for leave to amend her complaint, noting that Hughes offered no explanation for the delay in filing the motion and that allowing the amendment would have prejudiced Farmers and Hartnett. The judgment in favor of Farmers was affirmed, and Farmers was entitled to recover its costs on appeal. View "Hughes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange" on Justia Law

JHVS Group, LLC and its members, Jasanjot Singh and Harshana Kaur, purchased a 66.4-acre pistachio orchard from Shawn Slate and Dina Slate for approximately $2.6 million. The Slates agreed to carry a loan for $1,889,600, and JHVS made a $700,000 down payment. The agreement included interest payments and additional payments tied to crop yields. JHVS alleged that the Slates and their brokers, Randy Hayer and SVN Executive Commercial Advisors, misrepresented critical information about water rights and crop values, leading to financial losses and a notice of default filed by the Slates.The Superior Court of Madera County issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the foreclosure sale of the property, based on JHVS's claims of fraud and misrepresentation. The court granted the injunction after the defendants failed to appear or respond to the motion. The order was intended to preserve JHVS's right to rescind the contract.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and found that the trial court lacked fundamental jurisdiction over the Slates because they were never properly served with the summons and complaint. The appellate court determined that the preliminary injunction was void as to the Slates due to this lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order granting the preliminary injunction against the Slates and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The appellate court awarded costs to the Slates. View "JHVS Group, LLC v. Slate" on Justia Law

Michael Auer Wolf filed a request for a vocational evaluation of Patricia Mercado in a parentage action. The Superior Court of Orange County granted Wolf's request and later compelled Mercado to undergo the evaluation. Mercado filed an amended petition for writ of mandate, prohibition, or other appropriate relief, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to order the evaluation as it was not authorized by any statute.The Superior Court of Orange County initially granted Wolf's request for a vocational evaluation and later his motion to compel Mercado to undergo the evaluation. Mercado opposed the request, arguing it was improper under the relevant statutes and that child support issues were being handled by the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS). The court maintained that child support was at issue and that it had the authority to order the evaluation.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that Wolf did not establish entitlement to a vocational evaluation under any relevant statutory authority, including sections 3558, 4331, and 4058 of the Family Code. The court noted that section 3558 does not authorize vocational evaluations, section 4331 applies only to spousal support in dissolution or legal separation cases, and section 4058 requires a preliminary showing that a vocational evaluation would be in the best interests of the children, which Wolf did not provide. The court also found that Evidence Code section 730 did not support the order as it pertains to neutral experts appointed by the court, not retained experts.The Court of Appeal granted Mercado's petition, ordering the Superior Court to vacate its orders requiring Mercado to undergo a vocational evaluation and to enter a new order denying Wolf's request. The stay order was dissolved, and Mercado was awarded her costs incurred in the proceeding. View "Mercado v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Juan A., a teenager and dependent of the juvenile court, was removed from parental custody and placed in long-term foster care after the court found he was not adoptable and no one was willing to be his legal guardian. The court terminated family reunification services but did not terminate parental rights. Juan attended many hearings during his dependency case but was not present at the status review hearing that is the subject of this appeal. At that hearing, the court denied Juan’s trial counsel’s request for a brief continuance to allow Juan to be present, which was found to be an error as Juan had a right to be present under Welfare and Institutions Code section 349.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County declared Juan a dependent of the court in January 2020, removed him from parental custody, and ordered family reunification services for his mother. In August 2021, the court terminated these services. At a section 366.26 review hearing in June 2023, the court decided not to terminate parental rights, finding Juan not adoptable and no potential legal guardians available. The court ordered Juan to remain in foster care with permanent placement services. In March 2024, the court denied a continuance request for Juan to attend the permanency planning review hearing, found his placement appropriate, and scheduled the next review hearing for September 2024.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case and found that the juvenile court erred in denying the continuance request, as Juan had a statutory right to be present at the hearing. The court held that this error prejudiced Juan, as his presence could have allowed him to request additional services to improve his academic performance and employment prospects. The appellate court reversed the orders issued at the March 28, 2024 hearing and remanded the case for a new status review hearing in accordance with section 349. View "In re Juan A." on Justia Law