Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

David Katleski, an experienced golfer, was struck by an errant golf ball while competing in a tournament at Cazenovia Golf Club. The accident occurred during a "shotgun start" tournament, where players tee off simultaneously from different holes. Katleski was hit in the eye by a ball from another player teeing off from a nearby hole. He filed a negligence action against the golf club, claiming the course was negligently designed and operated, particularly pointing to the placement of a tee box that increased the risk of such accidents.The Supreme Court denied the golf club's motion for summary judgment, finding that there was a triable issue of fact regarding whether the course's design unreasonably enhanced the risk of being struck by a golf ball. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to the golf club. The court emphasized Katleski's experience and awareness of the course layout, concluding that the design did not expose him to risks beyond those inherent in the sport of golf. Katleski appealed to the Court of Appeals.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the primary assumption of risk doctrine precluded Katleski's negligence claim. The court found that being struck by a mishit golf ball is an inherent risk of the game, and there was no evidence that the course's design unreasonably enhanced this risk.In a related case, Mary Galante was injured in a parking lot at a golf course before she began playing. The Appellate Division had applied the primary assumption of risk doctrine to dismiss her claim. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the doctrine did not apply because Galante was not participating in a protected athletic or recreational activity at the time of her injury. The case was remitted for further proceedings. View "Katleski v Cazenovia Golf Club, Inc." on Justia Law

Entergy companies petitioned for review of three orders by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). FERC had rejected tariff changes proposed by Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), arguing that the new tariff would grant Entergy excessive market power. Entergy contended that FERC’s decisions were arbitrary and capricious.The case was reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Entergy’s opening brief did not address the issue of standing, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite. This omission violated Circuit Rule 28(a)(7), which requires petitioners to set forth the basis for their claim of standing in their opening brief. As a result, Entergy forfeited any arguments in support of standing.The D.C. Circuit Court dismissed the petitions for review, stating that Entergy lacked standing. The court emphasized that Entergy’s failure to discuss standing in its opening brief constituted a forfeiture of the argument. Even if the court were to consider the standing arguments Entergy later advanced, the company did not demonstrate the necessary concrete, imminent, and redressable injury. The court concluded that dismissal was the appropriate consequence for Entergy’s failure to establish standing. View "Entergy Arkansas, LLC v. FERC" on Justia Law

Fell Holdings LLC and Stanyan Holdings LLC, misdescribed as California limited liability companies instead of Delaware limited liability companies, filed unlawful detainer proceedings against Fell Street Automotive Clinic, Stanyan Street Automotive Clinic, and Laurence Nasey. Nasey had lost ownership of two properties in San Francisco during a nonjudicial foreclosure but continued operating his businesses through a leaseback arrangement with the new owners, memorialized in a settlement agreement. The agreement allowed Nasey to repurchase the properties, with stipulated judgments against him if he failed to do so.The trial court entered judgments in favor of Fell Holdings and Stanyan Holdings, which were later enforced. Appellants moved to vacate these judgments, arguing that the misdescription of the plaintiffs' corporate status deprived the court of jurisdiction, rendering all judicial actions void. The trial court denied the vacatur motions.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the misdescription of the plaintiffs' corporate status did not automatically void the judgments. Instead, the issue was whether the discrepancy could be cured by amendment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1). The court reversed the trial court's orders denying the vacatur motions and remanded the case, directing the trial court to vacate the judgments and enforcement orders without prejudice. The trial court was instructed to consider any motions by the plaintiffs to amend their complaints to correct the misdescription and to address appellants' arguments regarding the release of Nasey's $202,500 earnest money deposit. The parties were to bear their own costs on appeal. View "1215 Fell SF Owner LLC v. Fell Street Automotive Clinic" on Justia Law

Steven Gomes filed a lawsuit to invalidate ordinances regulating groundwater use in Mendocino, adopted by the Mendocino City Community Services District (the district). The district argued that Gomes’s claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior case, Gomes v. Mendocino City Community Services Dist. (2019) (Gomes I), which challenged the district’s groundwater management program. The trial court found the ordinances contained an invalid attorney’s fee provision but rejected Gomes’s other claims.In Gomes I, the trial court denied Gomes’s petition challenging the district’s 2007 groundwater measures, but the judgment was reversed on appeal. The appellate court found the district had authority to limit groundwater extraction and that the 2007 measures were invalid due to non-compliance with statutory procedures. The district subsequently adopted new ordinances in 2020, which Gomes challenged in the present case.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. Gomes argued the ordinances imposed fees for groundwater extraction that required voter approval, which the district did not obtain. The court concluded that the claim was not barred by Gomes I, as it involved different ordinances and provisions. The court held that the fees imposed by the district were not for the extraction of groundwater and thus did not require voter approval under section 10710. The judgment was affirmed, except for the invalid attorney’s fee provision. View "Gomes v. Mendocino City Community Services Dist." on Justia Law

EOG Resources, Inc. holds drilling rights to oil and gas beneath property owned by Lucky Land Management, LLC in Ohio. The dispute arose over whether EOG's drilling rights included the right to drill horizontally from Lucky Land's surface to adjacent properties. EOG sought a preliminary injunction to access the land, cut down trees, and start constructing drills. The district court granted the injunction, finding that EOG would likely succeed on the merits.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted EOG's request for a preliminary injunction, allowing EOG to access the land and begin drilling operations. The court found that EOG was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim and that the balance of equities and public interest favored granting the injunction. Lucky Land Management appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and disagreed with the district court's findings. The appellate court held that Lucky Land had the better interpretation of oil-and-gas law, which generally does not allow a lessee to use the surface of one property to drill into neighboring lands without explicit permission. The court also found that EOG would not suffer irreparable harm if it had to wait for the litigation to proceed, as any potential losses could be compensated with monetary damages. The court emphasized that preliminary injunctions are meant to prevent irreparable injuries and preserve the court's ability to issue meaningful final relief, not to serve as shortcuts to the merits. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's decision to grant the preliminary injunction. View "EOG Resources, Inc. v. Lucky Land Management, LLC" on Justia Law

NCO Financial Systems, Inc. (NCO) entered into a lease agreement with Montgomery Park, LLC (Montgomery Park) for over 100,000 square feet of office space in Baltimore, Maryland. The lease allowed NCO to terminate early after eight years if certain conditions were met. NCO attempted to terminate early, but Montgomery Park claimed the conditions were not satisfied. NCO vacated the premises and stopped paying rent, leading Montgomery Park to send a default notice. NCO then filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that it had properly terminated the lease and that the rent was based on misrepresented square footage.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland found in favor of Montgomery Park after a bench trial, awarding it $9,854,566.95 plus ongoing interest. The court also set a schedule for determining Montgomery Park’s claim for costs, fees, and expenses. Montgomery Park filed a motion seeking approximately $3.8 million for these costs, which NCO opposed on several grounds, including the lack of a proper demand for payment and the inclusion of fees for defending against NCO’s initial suit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that Montgomery Park made a valid demand for payment when it filed its motion for costs, fees, and expenses on August 24, 2022. The court held that default interest should run only from the date of this demand, not from when the costs were incurred, and remanded the case to recalculate the interest. The court affirmed the district court’s award of costs, fees, and expenses, including those incurred in defending against NCO’s claims and expert witness fees, finding no abuse of discretion or error in the district court’s decisions.The Fourth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions to recalculate the default interest. View "NCO Financial Systems, Inc. v. Montgomery Park, LLC" on Justia Law

Cristina Balan, an automotive design engineer, filed a defamation lawsuit against Tesla, Inc. and Elon Musk, alleging that Tesla made defamatory statements about her, including accusations of theft, after an article about her was published in the Huffington Post. Tesla moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement in Balan's employment contract. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington partially granted Tesla's motion, compelling arbitration for part of the defamation claim. Balan then amended her arbitration demand to include a defamation claim against Musk.The Western District of Washington initially denied Tesla's motion to compel arbitration in part, but the Ninth Circuit reversed this decision, ruling that the entire defamation claim was subject to arbitration. Consequently, the district court dismissed the case. The arbitrator applied California law and dismissed Balan's defamation claims against Tesla and Musk based on the statute of limitations, issuing an award in favor of Tesla and Musk.Tesla and Musk petitioned the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to confirm the arbitration award. The district court granted the petition, confirming the award. Balan appealed, arguing that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the award.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration award. The Ninth Circuit cited the Supreme Court's decision in Badgerow v. Walters, which prohibits looking past the face of a petition under 9 U.S.C. § 9 to establish jurisdiction. Since Tesla's petition to confirm a zero-dollar award did not meet the amount in controversy requirement, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "TESLA MOTORS V. BALAN" on Justia Law

Maria Wilson purchased an insurance policy from Union National Fire Insurance Company (UNFIC) through agent Robin Wilson. The policy covered personal property at 2170A Tillman Chapel Road, which included a house and a travel trailer. Maria, who is illiterate, relied on Robin's verbal description of the policy. After a fire destroyed the house and her personal property, Maria filed a claim, which was denied by UNFIC, citing that she did not live in the house, a purported requirement for coverage.Maria sued UNFIC, Kemper Corporate Services, Robin Wilson, and others in the Circuit Court of Claiborne County, Mississippi, alleging breach of contract, negligence, fraud, and other claims. The defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction and claiming that the non-diverse defendants were improperly joined. The district court agreed, denied Maria's motion to remand, and compelled arbitration based on the policy's arbitration clause. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the defendants, and the district court confirmed the arbitration award.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in denying Maria's motion to remand because non-diverse defendant Robin Wilson was properly joined. The court found that the insurance policy did not clearly require Maria to live in the house for her personal property to be covered, thus her negligence claim against Robin Wilson was viable. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the motion to remand, vacated the order compelling arbitration and the confirmation of the arbitration award, and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to remand it to state court. View "Wilson v. Kemper Corporate Services" on Justia Law

A former landlord sued two commercial tenants and their law firm, alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. The claims arose from prior litigation where the tenants had successfully counterclaimed for damages against the landlord. The landlord claimed that the tenants' actions during the prior litigation caused him emotional distress and were malicious and abusive.In the prior proceedings, the landlord had filed a forcible entry and detainer (FED) action against the tenants, which resulted in the tenants counterclaiming for breach of contract and other damages. The superior court dismissed the landlord's FED claim and some of the tenants' counterclaims but awarded the tenants damages for breach of contract related to property maintenance. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed this decision.The superior court dismissed the landlord's new claims, taking judicial notice of the prior proceedings without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that the NIED claim was barred by litigation privilege, the malicious prosecution claim failed because the prior proceedings did not terminate entirely in the landlord's favor, and the abuse of process claim failed because the landlord did not allege an ulterior purpose separate from the litigation process.The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's decision. It held that the superior court properly took judicial notice of the prior proceedings and did not need to convert the motion to dismiss. The court agreed that the NIED claim was barred by litigation privilege, the malicious prosecution claim failed due to the lack of favorable termination, and the abuse of process claim failed because the landlord did not allege an ulterior purpose independent from the litigation process. View "Griffith v. Hemphill" on Justia Law

Plaintiff AirDoctor, LLC, sells air purifiers and replacement air filters, while Defendant Xiamen Qichuang Trade Co., Ltd., sells replacement air filters primarily through Amazon.com. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant falsely advertised its air filters as compatible with Plaintiff’s air purifiers and offering equivalent filtration, which diverted sales from Plaintiff and harmed its reputation. Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging violations of the Lanham Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and California’s False Advertising Law, seeking various forms of relief, including actual damages to be determined at trial, attorney’s fees, and an injunction.The United States District Court for the Central District of California entered default judgment in favor of Plaintiff after Defendant failed to appear or respond. However, the district court denied Plaintiff’s request for actual damages, reasoning that awarding damages would exceed what was demanded in the pleadings under Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as the Complaint did not specify an amount of damages sought. The district court also denied attorney’s fees based on its local rules, which tied fees to the amount of damages awarded.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that Rule 54(c) does not prohibit awarding actual damages in a default judgment when the pleadings sought such damages in an amount to be determined at trial. The court referenced its decision in Henry v. Sneiders, which allowed for damages to be awarded even if the exact amount was not specified in the complaint. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of damages and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "AirDoctor, LLC v. Xiamen Qichuang Trade Co., Ltd" on Justia Law