Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

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

A restaurant operated by PFPCO.’s Noble Pie Parlor leased space in the El Cortez Hotel in Reno, Nevada, which was owned by El Cortez Reno Holdings, LLC. After initially peaceful relations, the parties’ relationship deteriorated due to disputes over property maintenance and incidents such as a gas leak and a stolen camera. Tensions escalated when El Cortez locked Noble Pie out, resulting in litigation that ended largely in Noble Pie’s favor, with the judgment affirmed on appeal. Later, Noble Pie permanently closed its restaurant, prompting El Cortez to allege breach of the lease’s agreed-use provision and file a new complaint. Noble Pie moved to dismiss; the district court granted the motion but allowed El Cortez to amend its complaint. After further procedural exchanges, El Cortez filed an amended complaint, and Noble Pie again moved to dismiss.The Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, presided by Judge Egan K. Walker, reviewed El Cortez’s late opposition to the motion to dismiss and its request for an extension of time. El Cortez’s request, based on “professional courtesy,” was submitted just before the deadline. The district court denied the extension, finding no good cause for the delay and noting El Cortez’s pattern of tardiness in filings. The court treated El Cortez’s failure to timely oppose the motion as an admission under DCR 13(3), granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice, denied leave to further amend, and awarded attorney fees to Noble Pie as the prevailing party under the lease.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the extension, granting the motion to dismiss, refusing leave to amend, and awarding attorney fees. The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the district court did not abuse its discretion or err in any of these rulings and affirmed the judgment, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural rules in litigation. View "El Cortez Reno Holdings, LLC v. PFPCO.'s Noble Pie Parlor" on Justia Law

Lewis & Clark LTC Risk Retention Group, Inc. was placed into receivership and liquidation by the Nevada Commissioner of Insurance after financial distress. The Commissioner, acting as receiver, sued the company’s directors, alleging gross negligence and breaches of fiduciary duty relating to their management of the insurer. The allegations included knowingly relying on an unlicensed reinsurance broker, approving projects outside guidelines, operating the company in a hazardous condition, and violating Nevada statutes and regulations.After the directors moved for judgment on the pleadings, the Eighth Judicial District Court stayed proceedings while the directors petitioned for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court of Nevada, in Chur v. Eighth Judicial District Court, held that directors and officers can only be held personally liable for intentional misconduct, fraud, or knowing violations of the law, not gross negligence. The district court then denied the Commissioner leave to amend the complaint to meet this clarified standard, finding the amendment untimely, prejudicial, and futile, and entered judgment for the directors. The directors also moved for attorney fees and costs, which the district court denied, citing statutory immunity for the Commissioner.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada found that Chur I represented a significant change in law and that, under Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure and in the interest of justice, leave to amend should have been granted. The district court abused its discretion by denying the amendment, as the proposed changes were not made in bad faith, were not unduly prejudicial, and were not futile. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment in favor of the directors, vacated the denial of attorney fees, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Commissioner of Insurance v. Chur" on Justia Law

The case involves a Nevada-domiciled trust, managed by a Nevada family trust company, whose trustee petitioned the Second Judicial District Court of Nevada to seal confidential information and close all court proceedings under NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256. The district court sealed nearly all documents and concealed the existence of the case, citing concerns over revealing personal, financial, and business information, and later provided limited case information after media inquiries. Several media organizations, having reported on the matter—especially due to its connection to Rupert Murdoch and control over major media holdings—sought intervention to access court records and proceedings, arguing that the First Amendment presumption of public access applied.The probate commissioner recommended allowing media intervention but denying access, and the district court entered an order adopting this recommendation. The court interpreted the statutes as granting automatic and comprehensive confidentiality, finding that privacy and security concerns—heightened by the parties’ public profiles—constituted a compelling interest for sealing and closure. The district court also concluded it lacked discretion to consider redaction as an alternative and held that the statutes’ confidentiality provisions justified the broad closure, even after the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in Falconi v. Eighth Judicial District Court recognized a First Amendment presumption of access in civil and family court proceedings.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the district court’s decision, holding that NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256 permit only provisional sealing and require judicial discretion. The statutes do not automatically justify blanket sealing or closure, nor do they displace the common law or constitutional presumption of openness. The court found that the district court failed to make specific, non-speculative factual findings to justify the sealing and closure and did not adequately consider less restrictive alternatives. The Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of mandamus, directing the district court to vacate its sealing order and conduct the required analysis for each document and hearing transcript. View "New York Times Co. v. District Court" on Justia Law

The parties in this case were previously connected by family ties but became estranged following personal conflicts. The petitioner and respondent had known each other for decades and attended the same church. Their relationship deteriorated after the respondent began an affair with the petitioner’s wife. This led to repeated confrontations, including provocative behavior at child exchanges, an incident where the respondent revved his motorcycle outside the petitioner’s home, and a public encounter in which insults were exchanged. The petitioner also retaliated by making accusatory statements about the respondent both in person and online.After these ongoing disputes, the petitioner sought and obtained an ex parte civil sexually-oriented-offense protection order against the respondent, covering himself and his children. Following a full hearing in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, the magistrate granted a civil stalking protection order only for the petitioner, finding insufficient evidence to include the children. The magistrate interpreted the relevant statute as requiring only that the petitioner believe the respondent intended to cause mental distress. The trial court adopted this interpretation and overruled most of the respondent’s objections, except for modifying the order to permit the respondent to attend church when the petitioner was not present.The respondent appealed, and the Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court relied on its previous decision that a petitioner need only believe that the offender will cause physical harm or mental distress, not that actual mental distress occurred. This interpretation conflicted with rulings from other Ohio appellate districts, which require proof of actual mental distress.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the certified conflict and held that, under R.C. 2903.211(A)(1), it is sufficient for a petitioner to believe that the offender will cause mental distress in order to obtain a civil stalking protection order. The court affirmed the Fifth District’s judgment. View "Z.J. v. R.M." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was employed by defendant and, as a condition of employment, electronically signed both an offer letter containing an arbitration provision and a separate nondisclosure agreement (NDIAA) on the same day. The offer letter required arbitration for most employment-related disputes, while the NDIAA included terms such as a waiver of bond for injunctive relief and a heightened burden of proof for public domain information. Plaintiff’s employment ended in March 2023, after which she sued defendant in Alameda County Superior Court for disability discrimination, retaliation, and related claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, as well as wrongful termination. None of her claims involved confidential information or sought injunctive relief.Defendant moved to compel arbitration, asserting the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governed and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the arbitration agreement’s scope. The trial court found the arbitration agreement and NDIAA should be read together under California Civil Code section 1642, determined that certain NDIAA provisions were unconscionable, and concluded that unconscionability permeated the arbitration agreement. The court declined to sever the NDIAA’s unconscionable provisions and denied the motion to compel arbitration.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, disagreed with the trial court’s refusal to sever. The appellate court held that the FAA does not preempt section 1642, and even assuming the NDIAA’s challenged provisions were unconscionable and properly considered alongside the arbitration agreement, those provisions were collateral to the arbitration agreement’s central purpose and did not affect the claims at issue. Applying Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc., the appellate court determined that the unconscionable terms should have been severed and the arbitration agreement enforced. Consequently, the order denying arbitration was reversed. View "Wise v. Tesla Motors, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2017, the plaintiff was involved in a low-speed collision when the defendant, driving a car, struck the plaintiff riding a motorcycle. The plaintiff did not fall or receive immediate medical attention and reported pain only in his hip, leg, and foot the following day. He later claimed the accident caused severe and lasting neck and groin injuries. The defense contested the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries, noting his continued participation in physical activities after the accident. As trial approached, the plaintiff, who had previously designated numerous expert witnesses, visited a new doctor—Dr. Gravori—just days before trial. Dr. Gravori recommended spine surgery, introducing a new theory of injury not previously disclosed.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County allowed Dr. Gravori to testify as an expert, provided he was immediately made available for a deposition at the plaintiff’s expense. The defense objected, arguing the late disclosure of this expert was prejudicial and violated procedural rules. The deposition took place during jury selection, and the court maintained its ruling, permitting Gravori’s testimony. The jury ultimately awarded the plaintiff substantial damages, including future medical expenses and pain and suffering.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the late expert witness. The appellate court found that the plaintiff offered no reasonable justification for the delayed designation of Dr. Gravori and failed to follow statutory requirements for augmenting the expert witness list. The court held that this was an abuse of discretion and that the error was prejudicial, likely affecting the outcome. Accordingly, the judgment and costs order were vacated, and the case was remanded for a new trial. Costs were awarded to the appellants. View "Fancourt v. Zargaryan" on Justia Law

A Singapore-based company that supplies offshore vessels entered into a charter agreement with a Mexico-based marine oil and gas company. The agreement allowed the Mexican company to charter a vessel for eighteen months, with provisions for termination if payments were not made and an obligation to redeliver the vessel at the end of the term. After the charter expired, the Singaporean company alleged that the Mexican company failed to pay required fees and did not return the vessel, leading to arbitration in Singapore. The arbitrator awarded the Singaporean company damages and ordered the vessel’s return, but the Mexican company did not comply. Meanwhile, an email revealed that the Mexican company was set to receive a large refund from a third party, to be sent to a U.S. bank account in the name of a related U.S. entity.The Singaporean company filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, seeking to attach the funds in the U.S. account as security for the arbitration award under federal maritime law and, later, Texas state law. The district court initially granted the writ of garnishment, but after limited discovery, vacated the writ, finding no evidence that the Mexican company owned the funds in the U.S. account. The district court also denied the plaintiff’s request for leave to amend its complaint to assert an alter ego theory, which would have permitted attachment based on state law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider relevant evidence and legal standards regarding ownership and control of the funds. The appellate court also determined that the district court erred in denying leave to amend without adequate explanation. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case, instructing the district court to allow the plaintiff to amend its complaint. View "CH Offshore v. Mexiship Ocean" on Justia Law