Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

John Doe was a motivational speaker who, for nearly thirty years, was featured, promoted, and endorsed by the California Association of Directors of Activities (CADA) to intermediate and high school audiences. In 2022, CADA received an email from a former church youth group member alleging that Doe, under a different name in the 1990s, had engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a 17-year-old student. After an independent investigation, CADA concluded that Doe was likely the person in question and terminated its association with him. CADA notified its members of the termination without disclosing the nature of the accusation.Doe filed suit in Santa Cruz County Superior Court against both CADA and the accuser, asserting tort and contractual claims. Both defendants filed special motions to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court granted the accuser’s motion, finding Doe’s claims against her were protected by the common interest privilege and lacked evidence of malice. Regarding CADA, the trial court found the claims arose from protected activity but denied CADA’s motion to strike most of Doe’s claims, concluding Doe showed a sufficient probability of prevailing, particularly on contract-based claims.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the trial court’s order denying CADA’s anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court held that all of Doe’s tort claims and contractual claims based on CADA’s communications were subject to the common interest privilege and must be stricken, as Doe did not show CADA acted with malice. However, the court affirmed the denial of the motion as to Doe’s contractual claims based on his termination, concluding Doe demonstrated minimal merit and that public policy did not bar enforcement. The appellate court reversed in part and remanded, directing the lower court to strike the specified claims and allegations. View "Doe v. California Assn. of Directors of Activities" on Justia Law

SoCal Lien Solutions, LLC attempted to serve process on a domestic corporation, BDB Properties, at the address listed in public records for its principal office, executive officers, and agent for service of process. After multiple unsuccessful attempts to serve BDB’s designated agent, SoCal obtained a court order under California Corporations Code section 1702 authorizing service by hand delivery of the summons and complaint to the Secretary of State. SoCal delivered the documents to the Secretary on June 10, 2022. The Secretary did not forward notice of service to BDB until October 24, 2022, which was after the court had entered a default and default judgment against BDB.BDB later sought to set aside the default and judgment, first by ex parte application, which was denied, and then by a noticed motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County found BDB’s motion untimely under section 473.5 but granted relief on the ground that service was not complete until the Secretary mailed notice of the documents to BDB, rendering the judgment void.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the statutory language of Corporations Code section 1702 and determined that service is deemed complete ten days after the documents are delivered to the Secretary, regardless of when the Secretary forwards notice to the corporation. The court held that the lower court erred in ruling that service was incomplete until the Secretary mailed notice. The Court of Appeal reversed the order setting aside the default and default judgment and directed the trial court to vacate its order granting BDB’s motion. The main holding is that service on a corporation via the Secretary of State under section 1702 is complete ten days after delivery, and subsequent mailing of notice by the Secretary is not required to complete service. View "Socal Lien Solutions, LLC v. BDB Properties" on Justia Law

Rebecca Eisenberg, a director of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, was permitted to review two confidential investigation reports at the District’s facility in January 2024. These reports, prepared by outside counsel, addressed allegations of misconduct by Eisenberg and complaints she raised against staff. The District explicitly instructed Board members not to remove the reports from the premises. Eisenberg nevertheless left the facility with the reports, later admitting her actions at Board meetings. After repeated requests for their return and a formal censure by the Board, Eisenberg refused to return the reports.The District filed suit in Santa Clara County Superior Court, asserting claims including conversion and seeking prejudgment recovery of the reports. It successfully moved for a writ of possession and a turnover order, which Eisenberg temporarily stayed by posting a statutory undertaking. The District then sought a mandatory preliminary injunction compelling the return of the reports. Eisenberg opposed this, arguing that the claim and delivery law’s remedy (the writ of possession, now stayed) precluded further injunctive relief and that the District did not meet the requirements for an injunction.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the trial court’s order granting the preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that Code of Civil Procedure section 516.050 expressly permits a party to seek injunctive relief for possession of personal property, even after pursuing relief under the claim and delivery law. The court further found no abuse of discretion: the District demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on its conversion claim and showed that the harm to the District from denial of the injunction outweighed any harm to Eisenberg. The appellate court affirmed the order granting the preliminary injunction, requiring Eisenberg to return the confidential reports. View "Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. v. Eisenberg" on Justia Law

In September 2020, a college student alleged she was sexually assaulted by a man during a late-night traffic stop in Virginia. She reported the incident to local law enforcement and participated in multiple interviews with detectives, who investigated her claims but found surveillance footage that was low-quality and recorded at a different time than the alleged assault. During a subsequent interview, detectives pressured her about inconsistencies in the evidence and, after the interview, she received threatening text messages. The detectives later told university officials she had confessed to fabricating her report. The sheriff then directed detectives to use her confession as probable cause for an arrest warrant charging her with filing a false police report. After her arrest, officers issued a press release with her personal information and photo, which led to widespread public shaming and emotional distress.Initially, she was convicted in a bench trial in Washington County District Court, but after appealing, her conviction was annulled and she was acquitted in a de novo bench trial in Washington County Circuit Court. She then sued the officers and the sheriff in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, alleging violations of her constitutional rights and state law torts.The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), relying on an audio recording of the key interview. The court found the recording contradicted her claims of coercion, ruling that it showed a civil discussion without coercion and that her confession appeared voluntary. It also found her allegation of having no choice but to confess was not credible based on the recording.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court erred by dismissing the complaint based on the audio recording, because the recording did not "blatantly contradict" her factual allegations as required by Fourth Circuit precedent. The appellate court vacated the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bermeo v. Andis" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case are trustees who own a property in Kīhei, Maui, which they use as a vacation home for personal use. In 2021, Maui County reclassified their property as a “short-term rental” based solely on zoning, not actual use, resulting in a higher property tax rate. The plaintiffs paid the assessed taxes but did not utilize the administrative appeals process available through the Maui County Board of Review. Instead, they filed a class action in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, seeking a refund and alleging that the County’s collection of the higher taxes was unconstitutional, violated due process, and resulted in unjust enrichment.The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit granted the County’s motion to dismiss, finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court determined that under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes chapter 232 and Maui County Code chapter 3.48, the proper procedure for contesting real property tax assessments—including constitutional challenges—requires first appealing to the County Board of Review and, if necessary, then to the Tax Appeal Court. Because the plaintiffs bypassed these required steps and missed the statutory deadline to appeal, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the Tax Appeal Court has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals regarding real property tax assessments, including those raising constitutional issues, and found that the plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred due to their failure to timely pursue the established administrative remedies. As a result, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Piezko v. County of Maui" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on a Florida-based construction project, where Westerfeld Construction by Glick, LLC served as the general contractor. Westerfeld, a Florida company, retained Jessup Construction, LLC as a subcontractor. Jessup and GSH of Alabama, LLC entered into a joint venture to work on the project and later obtained a $5.8 million loan from Mobilization Funding, LLC, a company with operations in South Carolina. The loan contracts involved Mobilization Funding, Jessup, GSH, and individual guarantors, and included South Carolina choice-of-law and venue provisions. Westerfeld was not a party to these loan contracts. When Jessup allegedly defaulted, Mobilization Funding sued Jessup, GSH, and the guarantors in South Carolina, and GSH, joined by individual guarantors, brought third-party claims against Westerfeld, alleging conspiracy and fraud.After removal, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina reviewed Westerfeld’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Applying the prima facie standard, the district court held that it lacked both general and specific jurisdiction over Westerfeld. The court found Westerfeld had no offices, employees, or business activities in South Carolina and was not party to any South Carolina-centered agreements. The court also determined that GSH’s conspiracy allegations were conclusory and did not plausibly tie Westerfeld to conduct in South Carolina sufficient to establish jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the third-party complaint against Westerfeld and certified its order as final.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s ruling de novo. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that Westerfeld did not have sufficient minimum contacts with South Carolina to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. The court rejected both direct and conspiracy-based theories of jurisdiction, concluding that GSH failed to present plausible, particularized facts to support jurisdiction over Westerfeld. The judgment of dismissal was affirmed. View "Stokes v. Westerfeld Construction by Glick, LLC" on Justia Law

A group of 169 individuals who worked at the Clark County Government Center in Las Vegas brought claims alleging that they suffered serious injuries due to exposure to toxic chemicals, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), at their workplace. The site of the Government Center had previously been used as a rail yard by Union Pacific Railroad, and plaintiffs alleged that Union Pacific dumped waste, including PCBs manufactured by the former Monsanto Company, at the site. Plaintiffs asserted that Monsanto’s corporate successors inherited liability for harms caused by the production, sale, and distribution of PCBs, which allegedly caused a range of health issues for those exposed.The plaintiffs initially filed suit in Nevada state court against multiple defendants, including Union Pacific, the Las Vegas Downtown Redevelopment Agency, and Monsanto’s successors. The claims sought compensatory and punitive damages for injuries stemming from the alleged contamination. Monsanto’s successors removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The plaintiffs moved to remand the case back to state court, and the District Court granted the motion, finding that the local controversy exception to CAFA applied since the alleged injuries were localized to Clark County.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s remand order de novo. The Ninth Circuit held that CAFA’s local controversy exception did not apply because the principal injuries resulting from Monsanto’s conduct were not shown to have been incurred primarily in Nevada. The court found that plaintiffs’ allegations described nationwide distribution and harm from PCBs, with no facts indicating that Nevada experienced principal or unique injuries. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s order remanding the case and ordered the case to proceed in federal court. View "EMPLOYEES AT THE CLARK COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER V. MONSANTO COMPANY" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over possession and damages related to a residential property in Malibu. In 2019, the plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action against several defendants, including the defendant, seeking possession of the property and damages. The defendant responded with an answer denying several key allegations, including the plaintiff’s ownership of the property and the claimed fair rental value. The plaintiff later obtained leave to file a first amended complaint, which reclassified the action and asserted new causes of action but relied on the same underlying facts as the original complaint. The defendant did not file a new answer to this amended complaint.The Los Angeles County Superior Court entered a default against the defendant after he failed to answer the amended complaint and subsequently entered a default judgment awarding significant damages. The defendant moved multiple times to set aside the default judgment. The court eventually denied his postjudgment motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), which allows courts to set aside void judgments. The defendant timely appealed these orders.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed whether the original answer sufficed to controvert the first amended complaint’s allegations and precluded entry of default. The appellate court held that because the defendant’s original answer denied essential factual allegations that remained central to the amended complaint—including ownership and valuation—the default judgment was improper. The court found that a defendant’s original answer stands as a response to reasserted facts in an amended complaint, and default cannot be entered on allegations previously denied. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and the trial court’s order denying the motion to set aside default, remanding with instructions to vacate the default and default judgment. View "Ammari v. Ammari" on Justia Law

On July 29, 2007, Noel Dean’s wife, Shannon, died from a gunshot wound at their home after she became severely intoxicated and after Noel confronted her with evidence of an affair. Noel reported that Shannon shot herself, but law enforcement suspected homicide. The next day, Dr. Darshan Phatak, an assistant medical examiner, performed the autopsy. Initially, he could not determine whether the death was a homicide or suicide and marked the cause as “pending.” After meeting with colleagues and reviewing police interviews and other evidence, Dr. Phatak concluded the gun’s orientation at the time of the shooting was inconsistent with Noel’s account and classified the death as a homicide in the official autopsy report. This report contributed to Noel’s arrest and indictment for murder. During a subsequent trial, photographic overlays created by Dr. Phatak’s supervisor suggested the gun orientation matched Noel’s story, prompting a change in the autopsy report’s classification to “undetermined” and a dismissal of charges.Noel Dean then filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Dr. Phatak intentionally fabricated the autopsy report. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Dr. Phatak’s summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity, relying on allegations rather than evidence. On initial appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded for proper consideration of the summary judgment record. After further briefing and significant delay, the district court again denied summary judgment, applying a “deliberate indifference” standard.On this second interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the district court applied the wrong legal standard by using a “deliberate indifference” test rather than determining whether a rational juror could find Dr. Phatak intentionally misstated his conclusions. The appellate court vacated the denial of summary judgment and remanded for reconsideration under the correct standard. View "Dean v. Phatak" on Justia Law

Two siblings, Ryan and Nancy, disputed the administration of their father Hal’s estate and the status of his ownership interest in Tautphaus Park Storage, LLC (TPS), an Idaho storage facility business. Hal, who suffered from progressive dementia before his death, was TPS’s sole voting member and manager, with Nancy assisting in legal and management matters. Several amendments to TPS’s operating agreement changed ownership and management, culminating—after Hal’s death—in Nancy executing further amendments that retroactively transferred Hal’s economic interest to herself and changed accounting records. Nancy, an attorney, served as both Hal’s lawyer and later as personal representative of his estate. Ryan questioned whether Hal’s interest in TPS remained an estate asset and sought access to business records, which Nancy resisted.The siblings litigated issues in two related cases in Bonneville County: a probate case in the Magistrate Court regarding Hal’s estate, and a separate TEDRA (Trust and Estate Dispute Resolution Act) civil action in District Court initiated by Ryan. Both courts and parties at times treated the cases as consolidated. Ryan’s TEDRA complaint sought judicial determination of estate assets, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and appointment of a receiver, naming Nancy in both her individual and representative capacities and TPS as defendants. The magistrate court dismissed Ryan’s claims and removed Nancy and TPS as parties, finding that estate matters should be decided exclusively in probate. The district court affirmed, denying Ryan’s motions and dismissing his amended complaint, reasoning that Ryan’s claims were matters for probate only.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho vacated both lower courts’ judgments. It held that Ryan’s claims for judicial determination of estate assets and breach of fiduciary duty fall within TEDRA’s definition of “matters” and may be raised in a separate civil action, not only in probate. The Court reversed the orders dismissing claims and parties, remanded the case for further proceedings, and awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees to Ryan against Nancy personally. View "Monson v. Monson" on Justia Law