Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC, filed two actions in the Macomb Circuit Court against Progressive Michigan Insurance Company to recover personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits for care provided to Jose Cruz-Muniz and Sandra Cruz, who were injured in a 2018 car accident. Jose and Sandra assigned their rights to seek PIP benefits to C-Spine, which then assigned its accounts receivable, including these claims, to factoring companies. Progressive moved for summary disposition, arguing C-Spine lacked standing as it had assigned its rights. The trial court initially denied but later granted the motion, concluding C-Spine lacked standing when the complaints were filed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding C-Spine retained its claims for PIP benefits under MCL 500.3112.Parie Wallace filed an action in the Wayne Circuit Court against Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) seeking PIP benefits after being injured in a bus accident. Wallace assigned her rights to PIP benefits to her medical providers. SMART moved for summary disposition, arguing Wallace could not bring the action due to the assignments. The trial court allowed Wallace to obtain revocations of the assignments, which she did, and then denied SMART’s motion. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Wallace was not the real party in interest when she filed her complaint and that her claims were barred by the one-year-back rule.The Michigan Supreme Court held that both C-Spine and Wallace had standing to file their lawsuits but were not real parties in interest at the time of filing due to their assignments. The Court ruled that defects in real party in interest status could be cured after filing. In C-Spine’s case, the Court of Appeals’ judgment was affirmed on alternate grounds, and the case was remanded to the trial court to consider whether C-Spine could cure the defect. In Wallace’s case, the Court of Appeals’ judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part, and the case was remanded for the trial court to consider whether equitable rescission was warranted and whether the real party in interest defect could be cured. View "Wallace v. Smart" on Justia Law

In 2008, the former Attorney General of Mississippi entered into a retention agreement with the Kilborn Firm to sue Entergy Corporation over electricity rates. The Kilborn Firm then agreed to split any compensation with Roedel Parsons, a Louisiana law firm. After years of litigation, the trial judge granted Entergy’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case with prejudice. The State did not appeal. Roedel Parsons then sued the State, claiming it was entitled to $34,625,000 as a third-party beneficiary under the retention agreement or, alternatively, for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit recovery.The Hinds County Circuit Court granted the State’s motion to dismiss under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court found that Roedel Parsons was not a third-party beneficiary under the retention agreement, as the agreement specified that any associated attorneys would be at the Kilborn Firm’s expense and at no cost to the State. The court also found that Roedel Parsons failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit recovery, as the State had no obligation to compensate Roedel Parsons under the terms of the agreement.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that Roedel Parsons was not a third-party beneficiary under the retention agreement and had no standing to sue the State for breach of contract. The court also held that Roedel Parsons failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit recovery, as the State had no reasonable expectation to compensate Roedel Parsons. The court further found that the common-fund doctrine did not apply, as Roedel Parsons failed to identify a specific fund or class of beneficiaries. View "Roedel Parsons Blache Fontana Piontek & Pisano v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

In March 2021, the district attorneys of Riverside, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Santa Clara counties filed a civil enforcement action against Credit One Bank, N.A. (Credit One) on behalf of the People of the State of California. The lawsuit alleged that Credit One engaged in debt collection practices that violated California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Unfair Competition Law. The People sought injunctive relief, civil penalties, restitution, and other equitable relief. Credit One responded with written discovery requests and later noticed the deposition of the People’s person most qualified (PMQ) to testify on 25 topics, including two document requests.The trial court denied the People’s motion to quash the deposition notice but instructed them to refile it as a motion for a protective order. The court granted the protective order in part, limiting the deposition topics and document requests but requiring the People to designate a PMQ. The People challenged this order, arguing that they should not be subject to deposition under the Code of Civil Procedure and that the deposition would be tantamount to deposing opposing counsel.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that the People, represented by government agencies, are subject to deposition under section 2025.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the court agreed that deposing the People in this context is effectively deposing opposing counsel. Therefore, the court applied the standard from Carehouse Convalescent Hospital v. Superior Court, requiring Credit One to demonstrate “extremely” good cause for the deposition. The trial court had not applied this standard, so the appellate court granted the petition and ordered the trial court to reconsider the People’s motion for a protective order using the correct standard. View "People v. Superior Ct. (Credit One Bank)" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Robert and Etleva Stratoberdha, filed a lawsuit in Superior Court against Clements Properties, LLC, Robert P. Rucando, and officials from the Town of Portsmouth. They alleged that Clements Properties caused continuous trespass by creating an illegal drainage structure, Rucando failed to disclose flooding issues when selling the property, and the Town neglected to enforce ordinances. During the prolonged litigation, Etleva filed for divorce, and the Family Court issued orders related to the sale of the marital home and the settlement of the Superior Court action.The Family Court appointed a Commissioner to sell the marital home and authorized her to settle the Superior Court action. Robert did not appeal these orders. The Family Court later approved a settlement agreement where Clements Properties would buy the marital home for $870,000, and the Town would pay $75,000 in damages. The Family Court's orders and the settlement agreement were incorporated into the interlocutory decision pending entry of final judgment in the divorce case. Robert's appeal of this decision was dismissed as untimely.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's order approving the settlement agreement. The Court held that the Family Court's orders were final and could not be challenged in the Superior Court. The Superior Court's approval of the settlement agreement was a ministerial act based on the Family Court's final decrees. The Court found no merit in Robert's arguments and concluded that the Superior Court properly relied on the Family Court's orders. View "Stratoberdhav. Clements Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiffs, Kristina Urbonas and Arunas Aniukstis, purchased property at 5 Bowser Court in Newport, Rhode Island. The defendant, NRI 51 Kingston Partnership (NRI), acquired adjacent property at 51 Kingston Avenue. A dispute arose when NRI's representative, John Gullison, conducted renovations and removed part of the plaintiffs' cobblestone landing, claiming it encroached on NRI's property. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration of ownership over the disputed land based on the doctrine of acquiescence, adverse possession, and an easement by prescription.The Superior Court awarded title to the plaintiffs for the disputed land, finding that the plaintiffs had acquired the land through the doctrine of acquiescence. The court also granted title to other abutters of Bowser Court, even though they had not requested such relief. NRI appealed, arguing that the trial justice misapplied the doctrine of acquiescence and erred in awarding title to other abutters.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the trial justice erred in granting relief to the other abutters who had not requested it. The court also determined that the doctrine of acquiescence was not applicable because the disputed boundary was not solely on the parties' adjoining lots but also bordered Bowser Court. However, the court found that the plaintiffs had established an easement by prescription over the five-foot strip of land, as they had used the walkway openly, continuously, and hostilely for the statutory period.The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment in part, recognizing the plaintiffs' easement by prescription, and vacated the part of the judgment granting relief to the other abutters. View "Urbonas v. Gullison" on Justia Law

Sharon Andersen filed a complaint against the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) alleging hostile-work-environment disability discrimination under the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA). Andersen, who worked for DHHS from 2005 to 2019, claimed that from July 2018 to August 2019, she experienced increased stress and anxiety due to her workload and interactions with her supervisor. She reported panic attacks and was eventually diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Andersen requested reasonable accommodations, including reassignment, which were denied. She went on medical leave in January 2019 and resigned in August 2019, claiming constructive discharge.The Superior Court (Cumberland County) granted summary judgment in favor of DHHS, concluding that Andersen’s claim was time-barred. The court found that the only actions within the statutory limitations period were DHHS’s refusal to reassign Andersen and her resignation, neither of which were discriminatory in themselves or indicative of a continuing violation.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Court held that Andersen did not make a prima facie showing of a continuing violation. The Court determined that Andersen’s resignation, occurring more than seven months after she went on medical leave, was too disconnected from the alleged hostile work environment to qualify as a constructive discharge. Additionally, the Court noted that DHHS’s refusal to reassign Andersen was not a required reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the MHRA. Therefore, Andersen’s claim was deemed untimely, and the summary judgment in favor of DHHS was affirmed. View "Andersen v. Department of Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

C.C. is the mother of B.F. and I.F. In November 2021, she left the children with their paternal uncle, who provided a stable home. In November 2022, the children came under the protective custody of the Cass County Human Service Zone (CHSZ) due to concerns of parental abandonment. The whereabouts of A.F., the father, were unknown. In March 2023, the juvenile court adjudicated the children as needing protection and placed them in CHSZ custody for nine months, finding aggravating factors and adopting a reunification plan. In December 2023, CHSZ filed a petition to terminate C.C.'s parental rights but later amended it to extend CHSZ custody for nine months due to C.C.'s progress. In February 2024, the court granted CHSZ custody for an additional nine months with concurrent plans of reunification and termination.In October 2024, CHSZ petitioned to terminate C.C. and A.F.'s parental rights, citing C.C.'s failure to maintain progress on the reunification plan. C.C. attended the initial hearing and a status conference in December 2024 but failed to attend the February 2025 status conference. The court found C.C. and A.F. in default and terminated their parental rights, noting C.C.'s continued drug use, failure to secure stable housing and employment, and lack of consistent participation in visitations and services.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the juvenile court's order. The court held that the juvenile court did not err in finding C.C. in default and that the evidence supported the termination of parental rights. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying C.C.'s motion to vacate the default judgment and concluded that the termination did not violate C.C.'s constitutional due process rights. View "Interest of B.F." on Justia Law

Prisca Fagnon petitioned for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Ndorleh Ngaima, alleging harassment on social media, stalking, threats with a knife, and physical violence resulting in a broken nose. A temporary restraining order was issued, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2025. Both parties testified, with Fagnon presenting evidence of a physical assault by Ngaima on July 24, 2023. Ngaima denied the allegations.The District Court of Stutsman County, Southeast Judicial District, found Fagnon's testimony credible and supported by photographic evidence of her injuries. The court determined that the act of physical violence constituted disorderly conduct and issued a restraining order for two years. Ngaima appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion by issuing the order without reasonable grounds and that the findings were inadequate.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case, noting that the standard for issuing a disorderly conduct restraining order requires reasonable grounds to believe the respondent engaged in disorderly conduct. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as the evidence of physical violence was relevant and sufficient to support the restraining order. The court also addressed the time and distance factors, concluding that the severity of the conduct and the need for controlled contact between the parties justified the order.The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the findings were adequate and supported by the evidence. The court emphasized that physical violence is generally intended to adversely affect the safety, security, and privacy of another person, and the district court's credibility determinations were upheld. View "Fagnon v. Ngaima" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute within the Unification Church, also known as the Unification Movement, following a schism and succession conflict. The plaintiffs, including the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification International, filed a complaint in 2011 against defendants, including Unification Church International (UCI) and its president, Hyun Jin (Preston) Moon. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants engaged in actions contrary to the church's mission, including amending UCI's articles of incorporation and transferring assets to entities like the Kingdom Investments Foundation (KIF) and the Global Peace Foundation (GPF).The Superior Court of the District of Columbia initially granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the defendants' actions were inconsistent with UCI's original purposes. However, the court's decision was reversed on appeal in Moon III, where it was held that resolving the plaintiffs' claims would require deciding disputed religious questions, making them nonjusticiable under the First Amendment's religious abstention doctrine. The case was remanded for further proceedings.On remand, the trial court dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked special interest standing to pursue their self-dealing claims against Preston Moon after Moon III, as the claims no longer involved extraordinary measures threatening UCI's existence. The court also determined that the contract claims were nonjusticiable under the religious abstention doctrine, as resolving them would require interpreting religious terms and doctrines. The court declined to apply the potential fraud or collusion exception to the religious abstention doctrine, finding no evidence of bad faith for secular purposes.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's orders, agreeing that the plaintiffs' claims were nonjusticiable and that they lacked special interest standing. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to deny the plaintiffs' motion to reopen discovery, finding no abuse of discretion. The litigation, which spanned over a decade, was thereby brought to a close. View "Family Federation for World Peace and Unification International v. Moon" on Justia Law

Ferida H. Moy suffers from severe PTSD due to her experiences during the Yugoslav Wars. She applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, citing her PTSD and related mental health issues. An administrative law judge (ALJ) denied her application, finding that she had the residual functional capacity to perform simple, routine tasks with minimal contact with supervisors and co-workers. This decision was upheld by the district court, leading Moy to appeal.The ALJ found that Moy had moderate limitations in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace but concluded that she could work at a consistent production pace. The ALJ's decision was based on the testimony of a vocational expert who stated that a person with Moy's limitations could work as a dining room attendant, bus person, scrap sorter, industrial cleaner, or dishwasher. However, the vocational expert also testified that regular absences or being off-task for more than 15% of the workday would result in job loss. The ALJ's decision was affirmed by the district court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that the ALJ failed to build a logical bridge between Moy's limitations and the conclusion that she could work at a consistent production pace. The court noted that the ALJ's determination did not adequately account for Moy's limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace. The court emphasized that the ALJ's reasoning was internally inconsistent and did not reflect Moy's documented symptoms and treatment needs. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further consideration consistent with its opinion. View "Moy v Bisignano" on Justia Law