Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A member of the governing board of a public water district was the subject of internal investigations after allegations of misconduct by district staff, as well as allegations made by that board member against staff. Two lengthy confidential reports, prepared by outside counsel, documented the results of these investigations. The board member was permitted to review, but not remove, the reports from a secure location at the district’s offices. Contrary to these restrictions, the board member took the reports without permission, later making extensive annotations on them. Repeated requests for their return were unsuccessful, leading to her censure by the board.The Santa Clara County Superior Court, upon the district's application under California’s claim and delivery law, granted a writ of possession and a turnover order directing the board member to return the reports. The board member stayed enforcement by posting a counterbond as allowed by statute. While the turnover order was stayed, the district sought a preliminary injunction under the general injunction statutes, again seeking return of the reports. After a hearing, the Superior Court granted a mandatory preliminary injunction requiring turnover of the reports, permitting the board member to redact her handwritten notes.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the appeal from the order granting the preliminary injunction. The court held that the claim and delivery statutory scheme does not preclude a party from seeking injunctive relief for the recovery of personal property, even after a writ of possession has been issued and stayed by a counterbond. The appellate court further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a likelihood of the district’s success on its conversion claim and in concluding that the balance of harms favored the district. The order granting the preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. v. Eisenberg" on Justia Law

A stockholder derivative suit was filed alleging that Tesla’s non-employee directors, with the approval of Elon Musk, breached their fiduciary duties by granting themselves excessive stock option compensation between 2017 and 2020. After discovery and mediation, the parties reached a settlement. Under its terms, the directors agreed to return to Tesla a mix of cash, stock, and unexercised stock options, and to forgo future compensation for certain years. The settlement also included various corporate governance reforms.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware approved the settlement, rejecting an objector’s arguments regarding the fairness and structure of director contributions and the binding nature of future stockholder approval votes for director compensation. The court valued the benefit to Tesla using the intrinsic value (“in the money” value) of the returned options, along with returned cash and stock, and awarded attorneys’ fees as a percentage of the calculated benefit. Tesla objected to the fee award, arguing that the value of the returned options to the company was far less than their intrinsic value and should instead be measured by the grant date fair value (GDFV), which reflects the accounting benefit to Tesla.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the approval of the settlement but reversed the method used to calculate the attorneys’ fee award. It held that the intrinsic value of the cancelled options should not have been included in determining the monetary benefit to Tesla for purposes of a common fund fee calculation. The Court concluded that, in derivative litigation, unless an investor-level benefit falls within a recognized exception, the benefit to the corporation is controlling. The Supreme Court modified the fee award to reflect only the actual corporate benefit and remanded for any further disputes regarding fees. View "IN RE TESLA, INC. DIRECTOR COMPENSATION STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION" on Justia Law

A group of individuals with beneficial interests in Indian trust lands on the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota challenged the continued operation of an oil pipeline by Andeavor Logistics and related entities after the expiration of a federally granted right-of-way in 2013. Despite the expiration, Andeavor continued to operate the pipeline while negotiating for renewals with both the tribal government and individual landowners, but was unable to secure agreements with all landowners. The plaintiffs, known as the Allottees, alleged ongoing trespass, breach of the expired easement agreement, and unjust enrichment, seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, and removal of the pipeline.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota twice dismissed the Allottees’ case, first for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, a decision reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in a prior appeal (Chase I), which instructed a stay for further agency action. After further BIA proceedings and related litigation (including the Tesoro case), the district court again dismissed all of the Allottees’ claims with prejudice, finding no individual federal common law cause of action for trespass, breach of contract, or unjust enrichment, and denied their motion to intervene in the Tesoro case, concluding the United States adequately represented their interests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Allottees’ claims for trespass, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, holding that individual Indian allottees with only equitable interests in land held in trust by the United States lack standing to bring these claims under federal common law. The court also affirmed denial of intervention in the Tesoro litigation. However, the Eighth Circuit remanded for further consideration of whether consolidation of the two related cases is appropriate under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. View "Chase v. Andeavor Logistics, L.P." on Justia Law

A Delaware limited liability company entered into an agreement to purchase real property in Jefferson County, Alabama, from an Alabama limited partnership. The agreement included provisions for the recovery of attorneys’ fees by the prevailing party in litigation arising from the contract. Disputes arose regarding whether the buyer satisfied conditions to extend the closing date, leading the seller to declare the agreement terminated. The buyer sued the seller, the seller’s general partner (a California corporation), and various individual limited partners (in both their personal capacities and as trustees of family trusts), seeking among other relief, damages for breach of contract and a declaration of rights under the agreement. The contract also provided for reimbursement of transaction costs and attorneys’ fees under certain circumstances.The case proceeded in the Jefferson Circuit Court. The court granted summary judgment for the buyer on liability, finding the seller had breached the agreement, and set the issue of damages for a jury trial. Subsequently, disputes arose about whether attorneys’ fees should be decided by the jury or the court. The circuit court ruled that attorneys’ fees recoverable by the prevailing party under the contract would be determined by the court after trial, not by the jury. The seller, general partner, and limited partners sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court of Alabama, arguing they were entitled to a jury trial on attorneys’ fees.The Supreme Court of Alabama denied the petition for writ of mandamus. The Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to a jury determination of prevailing party attorneys’ fees under the contract, because they did not adequately show that the Alabama Constitution or statutes provide such a right for this type of claim. The Court declined to overrule the circuit court’s decision to reserve the issue of attorneys’ fees for judicial determination following the trial on damages. View "Ex parte Vestavia Hills, Ltd." on Justia Law

A woman who had resided at an apartment complex in 2021 was injured when a bullet, fired from outside her apartment, struck her. She filed a pro se complaint with the Montgomery Circuit Court before the expiration of the statute of limitations, seeking to hold the apartment management responsible for her injuries on the basis that tenants were supposed to have 24-hour security due to increasing crime. The complaint, in the form of a letter, did not explicitly name a defendant or assert specific legal claims, but accompanying documents identified Hubbard Properties as the defendant and provided an address for service. However, she did not include summonses or provide instructions regarding service of process.No action was taken in the case until a status conference was held nearly two years later. Several months after that, and after the limitations period had expired, the plaintiff amended her complaint with the assistance of counsel, formally naming both Stonebridge and Hubbard Properties as defendants and asserting claims of negligence, wantonness, and failure to provide safe premises. At that time, she also included summonses and requested service by certified mail, and both defendants were served after the limitations period expired. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations because the plaintiff had not made a bona fide attempt to have the original complaint immediately served. The Montgomery Circuit Court denied the motions to dismiss without explanation.The Supreme Court of Alabama granted the defendants' petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that, although the complaint was filed before the statute of limitations expired, the plaintiff did not have the bona fide intent to have it immediately served, as objectively required for timely commencement of an action under Alabama law. Because of this, and because service occurred after the limitations period, the court directed the circuit court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. View "Ex parte Stonebridge, LLC" on Justia Law

Two sisters, aged twelve and nine, were sexually abused by their tutor during sessions at public libraries owned by two Alabama municipalities in 2017. The abuse was witnessed by library employees who allegedly failed to intervene or report the misconduct. The sisters disclosed the abuse to their mother later that year, prompting a police report. In 2023, the tutor was convicted of sexual abuse. In 2024, the sisters and their mother sued the municipalities, asserting negligence in failing to respond to the abuse.The initial complaint named nonprofit corporations associated with the libraries as defendants but was amended to substitute the municipalities themselves. Prior to filing the amended complaint, the plaintiffs served notices of claim to each municipality, but these were submitted more than six years after the alleged tortious conduct. Both the City of Irondale and the City of Birmingham moved to dismiss, arguing noncompliance with Alabama Code § 11-47-23, which requires notice of claim against a municipality within six months of claim accrual. The Jefferson Circuit Court granted their motions, dismissing the claims.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama considered whether minors are exempt from the six-month notice requirement under § 11-47-23. The plaintiffs argued that minority status should toll the notice period, referencing statutory provisions that extend the time for filing suit by minors. The Supreme Court of Alabama held that § 11-47-23 contains no exception for minors and that the statutory tolling provision applies only to statutes of limitations, not notice-of-claim statutes. The court affirmed the Jefferson Circuit Court's dismissal of the claims against both municipalities, holding that minors are subject to the same notice requirements as adults under Alabama law. View "A.G.R. v. The City of Irondale" on Justia Law

The case involves the family of a deceased inmate who alleged that certain medical professionals and a health services foundation, after performing an autopsy at the request of correctional authorities, removed and retained the decedent’s organs without family consent. The family contended they were not informed or asked for permission regarding the autopsy or retention of organs, and only learned the organs were missing when preparing the funeral. They claimed to have relied on statements from hospital staff that such practices were standard, and only discovered in December 2023, through media reports, that retention of organs without next-of-kin consent was allegedly unlawful.The Montgomery Circuit Court reviewed and denied the defendants’ consolidated motion to dismiss, finding that statutory limitations could be tolled due to alleged fraudulent concealment. The court determined that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged facts that, if proven, could justify equitable tolling under Alabama law, and that the family’s claims were not time-barred because they filed suit within two years of learning the alleged conduct was illegal.On review, the Supreme Court of Alabama considered a petition for writ of mandamus by the University of Alabama Health Services Foundation and Dr. Stephanie Reilly. The Court held that mandamus relief was appropriate because, from the face of the complaint, the claims were barred by applicable statutes of limitations. The Court reasoned the causes of action accrued by November 6, 2021, when the family learned the organs were missing, and rejected arguments for tolling or for treating the alleged conduct as a continuous tort. The Court distinguished between statutes of limitations governing different claims, and found that all claims against the petitioners except the AUAGA claim were time-barred. It therefore granted the petition and directed dismissal of all claims against the petitioners except for the AUAGA claim. View "Ex parte University of Alabama Health Services Foundation" on Justia Law

The plaintiff brought claims against her former employer alleging violations of federal and state wage and hour laws. After removal to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, some claims were resolved at summary judgment, leaving the federal wage claims for trial. Before trial, the parties participated in a court-ordered mediation before a magistrate judge, during which they reached an oral settlement agreement whose terms were recited on the record. The agreement included payment to the plaintiff, confidentiality, non-defamation, and no-rehire clauses, as well as dismissal of the action with prejudice. Both parties, including the plaintiff and her counsel, confirmed their assent to the agreement.Following the mediation, the defendant prepared written settlement documents and a stipulation of dismissal. However, the plaintiff refused to sign, asserting she felt pressured and that certain terms were ambiguous or not sufficiently definite. The district court reviewed these objections after the defendant moved to enforce the settlement. The court found the agreement enforceable, denied the plaintiff’s request for an evidentiary hearing on alleged undue influence due to lack of factual support, and ordered her to execute the documents. After the plaintiff failed to comply, the court ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the district court did not err in enforcing the oral settlement agreement or in denying the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and request for an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court found no genuine dispute of material fact as to the existence or terms of the settlement and affirmed the district court’s judgment, awarding costs and attorney fees to the defendant. View "Maccarone v. Siemens Industry, Inc." on Justia Law

Jane Doe initiated a lawsuit against Gregory Burns, alleging sexual battery, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Doe filed her complaint under a pseudonym due to the sensitive nature of the sexual assault allegations but did not seek prior court approval to proceed anonymously. After more than two years of litigation, including a failed removal to federal court and a related defamation action filed by Burns in Pennsylvania using Doe’s legal name, Burns moved in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada to require Doe to litigate under her real name. Doe opposed and filed a countermotion to continue under a pseudonym.The Eighth Judicial District Court granted Doe’s countermotion, referencing extrajurisdictional caselaw, particularly the Ninth Circuit’s balancing test from Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000). The court found that Doe’s need for anonymity, given the sensitive subject matter, outweighed any prejudice to Burns or the public’s interest in disclosure. Burns then petitioned the Supreme Court of Nevada for a writ of mandamus challenging that decision.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the district court’s exercise of discretion for manifest abuse and adopted the Ninth Circuit’s balancing framework. It held that a party may proceed pseudonymously when the need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity. The court found the district court’s application of the balancing test was reasonable, that no abuse of discretion occurred, and denied Burns’s petition for writ relief. Additionally, the Supreme Court clarified procedural guidance for future pseudonymous litigation and denied Doe’s request for sanctions against Burns. View "BURNS VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law

Three advocacy organizations filed suit against the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and its executive director, seeking institutional reforms to address alleged unconstitutional and unlawful conditions in the state’s juvenile detention facilities. The plaintiffs alleged that the facilities were overcrowded, understaffed, and dangerous, resulting in violence, isolation, and inadequate services for juveniles. They based their standing on their advocacy and direct representation work with affected youth, and described both the harm to juveniles and the impact on their own organizational missions.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The district court found that Disability Rights South Carolina (DRSC) had standing to sue on behalf of certain juveniles, but those claims were rendered moot when those juveniles left custody. The court also determined that Justice 360 had standing in its own right but concluded that its claims failed on the merits. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP was found to lack standing. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Fourth Circuit held that the advocacy organizations lacked Article III standing to pursue the claims because they failed to demonstrate a sufficient personal stake in the outcome. The court found that DRSC did not meet the requirements for associational standing as its constituents lacked indicia of membership. The court also concluded that none of the organizations suffered a cognizable injury directly caused by the defendants’ actions, but rather incurred self-imposed costs through voluntary advocacy. The court further held that the plaintiffs could not bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of rights belonging to others, as they had not alleged violations of their own federal rights. The dismissal was affirmed. View "South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice" on Justia Law