Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The case concerns an automobile accident in Prince George’s County, Maryland, involving George Bowens and a driver named Lisa Daniels, who was at fault. Bowens sustained injuries and held a $50,000 underinsured motorist (UIM) policy with State Farm. Daniels’ insurance had a $30,000 liability limit, which was offered to Bowens as a settlement for his injuries. Following established statutory procedures, Bowens notified State Farm of this offer, State Farm consented and waived subrogation rights, and Bowens accepted the $30,000. Bowens then sought to recover the remaining $20,000 available under his UIM policy from State Farm, which denied the claim.Bowens filed a breach of contract action in the District Court for Prince George’s County, seeking $20,000. State Farm moved to dismiss, arguing that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Bowens would have to prove total damages of $50,000—exceeding the court’s $30,000 jurisdictional cap. The District Court agreed and dismissed the case. Bowens appealed to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, which affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that the District Court would need to find damages over $30,000 and thus could not grant relief.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that the District Court’s jurisdiction is determined by the amount the plaintiff seeks from the defendant in the pending action, not by the total underlying damages or prior settlements received from the tortfeasor’s insurer. Since Bowens’ claim against State Farm was for $20,000, the District Court had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the judgment of the circuit court and ordered the case remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. View "Bowens v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins." on Justia Law

An individual went to a police station to report being assaulted, and officers responded to take his statement. While at the hospital, where the individual had been transported, officers observed that he was intoxicated and later placed him in custody for transport to a detoxification facility under Oregon’s civil detox statutes. The individual had a backpack with him. During an inventory of his property, an officer opened the closed, opaque backpack and discovered a butterfly knife, which led to a criminal history check and a subsequent arrest for possession of a restricted weapon.Initially, the Washington County Circuit Court denied a motion to suppress evidence from the backpack. On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld both the seizure and the inventory search of the backpack, reasoning that, under established case law, police could open closed, opaque containers likely to contain valuables if done pursuant to a lawful inventory policy. The Court of Appeals relied heavily on its prior decisions, concluding the inventory search was permissible under the relevant county ordinance and inventory policy.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reviewed the case. It held that, under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, inventory searches of closed, opaque containers that do not announce their contents are not permitted when a person is taken into custody on a civil detox hold, even if executed under a valid, non-discretionary inventory policy. The court emphasized that in the civil detox context, compliance with an inventory policy does not alone render such a search reasonable; privacy interests and the non-criminal nature of the detention require a higher level of protection. The Supreme Court of Oregon reversed the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State v. Wilcox" on Justia Law

In this case, the Jewetts obtained a mortgage loan in 1999, which was later assigned to U.S. Bank. The Jewetts stopped making payments before March 2016. U.S. Bank sent a notice of right to cure in July 2018 and initiated foreclosure proceedings against the Jewetts in September 2018, also naming Unifund as a party due to its judgment lien on the property.The District Court (Newport, Larson, J.) conducted a bench trial and dismissed U.S. Bank’s foreclosure action without prejudice, finding that U.S. Bank’s notice of default and right to cure did not comply with statutory requirements under 14 M.R.S. § 6111. The court’s order barred U.S. Bank from recovering attorney fees, costs, and certain charges in any future action, but did not expressly bar claims for unaccelerated amounts due under the note. Unifund then moved to alter or amend the judgment, seeking a judgment in favor of the Jewetts to preclude future claims for unaccelerated amounts, but the court denied the motion.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the matter de novo. It held that when a foreclosure action is dismissed due to a defective notice of default and right to cure, the dismissal is not on the merits, but claim preclusion applies to any amounts that could have been litigated in the action. The court concluded that the District Court was within its authority to dismiss the case without prejudice and was not required to enter a judgment for the Jewetts or explicitly bar future claims for unaccelerated amounts. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed. View "U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Jewett" on Justia Law

EscapeX IP, LLC brought a patent infringement suit against Google LLC, alleging that Google’s YouTube Music product infringed its ’113 patent. After Google responded, pointing out factual deficiencies in EscapeX’s claims and highlighting that the accused features either did not exist or predated the patent, EscapeX amended its complaint to target a different Google product. Google repeatedly notified EscapeX that its claims were baseless and requested dismissal, but EscapeX did not respond. The case was transferred from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. Meanwhile, a separate court found all claims of the ’113 patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which EscapeX did not appeal.Upon transfer, EscapeX attempted to file a joint stipulation of dismissal without Google’s consent, misstating that both parties would bear their own fees. Google demanded withdrawal, and a corrected stipulation was later filed. Google moved for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, arguing EscapeX’s claims were frivolous and that EscapeX had unreasonably prolonged litigation. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California found Google to be the prevailing party, determined EscapeX’s case was exceptional due to its lack of adequate pre-suit investigation and frivolous claims, and awarded Google attorneys’ fees and costs. EscapeX then moved to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), presenting new declarations as “new evidence,” but the district court denied the motion, finding the evidence was not newly discovered.Google sought additional attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for costs incurred opposing EscapeX’s Rule 59(e) motion. The district court found EscapeX’s motion frivolous and sanctioned EscapeX and its attorneys jointly and severally. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed all of the district court’s orders. The main holdings were that the case was exceptional under § 285, supporting an award of attorneys’ fees, and that sanctions under § 1927 for frivolous litigation conduct were appropriate. View "ESCAPEX IP, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC " on Justia Law

Bridgelink Engineering LLC, managed by two individuals, entered into a loan agreement with two banks in August 2021. The loans, totaling $34 million, were initially guaranteed by several LLCs also managed by the same individuals. A few months later, the individuals personally guaranteed Bridgelink’s loan obligations, with a guaranty agreement containing an early-release clause. This clause allowed the individuals to be released from liability if specific conditions were met, including the borrower’s loan being in good standing and compliance with financial covenants for two consecutive quarters. After a default in July 2022, the banks and Bridgelink amended the agreement, but Bridgelink later failed to meet the conditions for waiver of default and remained in default into 2023. Neither Bridgelink nor its guarantors made payments on the loans.The banks sued Bridgelink, the individuals, and the LLCs for breach of contract in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, asserting diversity jurisdiction. The individuals argued they had satisfied the guaranty’s early release conditions, and later challenged the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, contending that one of the banks was a Texas citizen, which would destroy diversity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed both the jurisdictional challenge and the merits. The appellate court held that complete diversity existed as the banks and all defendants were citizens of different states, confirming the district court’s jurisdiction. The court further held that the individuals had not satisfied the conditions for early release from their guaranty obligations because the borrower’s loan was in default and the required confirmations of compliance were not provided for two consecutive quarters. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment holding the individuals liable as guarantors for the loans. View "Cadence Bank v. Johnson" on Justia Law

After separating from his wife Monique in 2016, Brett, a sculptor, was ordered in a dissolution proceeding to pay spousal and child support. Brett accumulated approximately $2 million in unpaid support obligations and, according to his own testimony, held no assets apart from a copyright in certain works associated with Michael Jackson. Monique moved to have a receiver appointed and to compel Brett to assign the copyright to the receiver for purposes of monetization to satisfy the outstanding support debt.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Monique’s request, appointing a receiver and ordering Brett to assign his copyright to that receiver. Brett did not dispute his debt or the fact that his copyright was his only asset but argued that existing law did not authorize courts to compel the assignment of a copyright, contending that such authority existed only for patents. He timely appealed from this order.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that, under Code of Civil Procedure section 695.010, subdivision (a), all property of a judgment debtor, including copyrights, is subject to enforcement of a money judgment unless a specific exception applies. The court found no exception for copyrights. It further reasoned that although no published California case had previously addressed forced assignment of copyrights, statutes and past cases regarding other intellectual property, such as patents, supported the trial court’s authority. The court also found persuasive support in analogous federal and out-of-state decisions. Consequently, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order compelling Brett to assign his copyright to the receiver and denied Monique’s request for appellate sanctions. Respondent was awarded costs on appeal. View "In re Marriage of Strong" on Justia Law

An attorney who chaired the Davidson County Election Commission was also employed at a law firm that represented the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. The Election Commission became involved in a dispute over whether a citizen-initiated tax-repeal referendum should be placed on the ballot, a measure opposed by the city government and certain city council members. The attorney, acting as commission chair, supported certifying the referendum. Following pressure from city officials, including a council member who threatened to withdraw city business from the law firm if the attorney continued supporting the referendum, the law firm terminated the attorney’s employment after he refused to change his position.The attorney filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, asserting violations of his First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, among other claims. The district court denied motions to dismiss based on qualified immunity filed by both the council member and the law firm. The court concluded that the council member’s alleged conduct violated clearly established First Amendment law and that the law firm, as a private entity, was not entitled to qualified immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that both the council member and the law firm were eligible to assert qualified immunity due to their public functions in this context. The court held that the council member was not entitled to qualified immunity because the complaint plausibly alleged he violated clearly established First Amendment rights by causing the attorney’s firing due to protected speech. However, the court found that the law firm was entitled to qualified immunity, as there was no clearly established law prohibiting a law firm from firing an employee in response to client pressure under these circumstances. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity for the council member, reversed as to the law firm, and remanded for further proceedings. View "DeLanis v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville" on Justia Law

After a car accident in Prince George’s County, Maryland, George Bowens, who was injured by the clear negligence of another driver, sought to recover compensation for his injuries. The at-fault driver had $30,000 in liability insurance, which was offered to Bowens in settlement. Bowens, however, had a $50,000 underinsured motorist (UIM) policy with his own insurer, State Farm. After accepting the $30,000 from the at-fault driver’s insurer (with State Farm’s consent and waiver of subrogation rights), Bowens sought the remaining $20,000 from State Farm under his UIM policy, claiming breach of contract when State Farm denied the claim.Bowens filed his action in the District Court of Maryland, which has jurisdiction over contract claims not exceeding $30,000. State Farm moved to dismiss, arguing that to recover the $20,000, Bowens would have to prove total damages of $50,000—an amount above the District Court’s jurisdictional cap. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County affirmed, reasoning that the court would need to find Bowens’ damages exceeded $30,000, thus exceeding the District Court's authority.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts. It held that, for purposes of determining the District Court’s jurisdiction under § 4-401(1) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, the relevant amount is the “debt or damages claimed” in the pleadings—that is, the net recovery sought from the defendant in the action—not the plaintiff’s total damages. Because Bowens sought only $20,000 from State Farm, the District Court had jurisdiction to hear the case. The Supreme Court of Maryland remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Bowens v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Mike Dennis developed mycosis fungoides, a subtype of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, after regularly applying Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide manufactured by Monsanto, for approximately 20 years. Dennis claimed his cancer resulted from exposure to Roundup, which he alleged was sold and marketed without adequate warnings about its carcinogenic risks, despite Monsanto’s knowledge of the potential danger. He brought claims for design defect, failure to warn (under both negligence and strict liability), and negligence. At trial, the jury found that Monsanto was liable for failing to warn about the cancer risk, determining Monsanto knew or should have known of the risk, failed to provide adequate warnings, and acted with malice or oppression. The jury awarded Dennis $7 million in economic damages and $325 million in punitive damages.Following the verdict, Monsanto moved for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The Superior Court of San Diego County denied Monsanto’s requests to overturn the liability findings but reduced the punitive damages award from $325 million to $21 million, finding the original award disproportionate to the compensatory damages. Monsanto timely appealed, arguing that Dennis’s failure to warn claims were preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and that the punitive damages were excessive and unconstitutional.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. It held that FIFRA does not preempt state law failure to warn claims that parallel federal misbranding requirements, in line with United States Supreme Court precedent and California decisions. The court also found that the punitive damages award, as reduced by the trial court, did not violate due process, as it was based on highly reprehensible conduct directly related to Dennis’s harm. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in full. View "Dennis v. Monsanto Co." on Justia Law

A nonprofit religious organization operates several Zen Buddhist temples in California, providing residential training programs where participants, known as Work Practice Apprentices (WPAs), live and work at the temples. Participants perform various tasks, including cleaning, cooking, and guest services, as part of their Zen training. Upon completing the WPA program, individuals may become staff members, continuing similar duties while residing at the temple. The plaintiff participated as a WPA and later as a staff member, performing duties such as guest services, food preparation, and facility maintenance. She received modest monthly stipends and room and board, but ultimately challenged the compensation as inadequate under California wage-and-hour laws.After her affiliation with the organization ended, the plaintiff filed a wage claim with the Labor Commissioner, seeking unpaid regular and overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and liquidated damages. The Labor Commissioner ruled in her favor against the organization and two individual leaders, holding the individuals personally liable as employers under Labor Code section 558.1, and awarded her $149,177.15. The defendants appealed to the Superior Court of San Francisco, posting an undertaking only on behalf of the organization, not the individual defendants. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeals by the individuals for lack of undertakings and granted summary judgment for all defendants, finding the ministerial exception under the First Amendment barred the wage-and-hour claims.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reversed. It held that the ministerial exception does not bar wage-and-hour claims by ministers unless such claims would require judicial inquiry into ecclesiastical matters or religious doctrine. Because there was no evidence that adjudicating the plaintiff’s wage claims would entangle the court in religious concerns, the exception did not apply. The court also held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the individual defendants’ appeals due to their failure to post the required undertakings. View "Lorenzo v. San Francisco Zen Center" on Justia Law