Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A privately held Nebraska S corporation had two classes of stock: Class A voting shares and Class B nonvoting shares. In 2023, the corporation sold substantially all its assets to a third party in a transaction structured as a disposition of assets, with proceeds distributed to all shareholders. The board unanimously approved the transaction, and the majority of both classes of shares voted in favor, except for some Class A and Class B shareholders, who opposed or abstained. Following closing, Class B shareholders received their cash proceeds but subsequently notified the corporation of their intent to assert appraisal rights, seeking a higher payment per share.The District Court for Sarpy County was presented with cross-motions for partial summary judgment regarding whether Class B nonvoting shareholders were entitled to appraisal rights under Nebraska’s Model Business Corporation Act (NMBCA) following the asset sale. The district court found that the relevant statute (§ 21-2,172(a)(3)) limited appraisal rights for a disposition of assets to shareholders “entitled to vote on the disposition,” and therefore determined that Class B shareholders lacked such rights. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the corporation and related parties, dismissed certain third-party defendants, and certified the judgment for immediate appeal pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315(1).On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and its certification for abuse of discretion. The court held that only Class A voting shareholders were entitled to appraisal rights in connection with the disposition of assets, as the statute unambiguously limited such rights to voting shareholders. The court also found no express grant of appraisal rights to Class B shareholders in the articles of incorporation. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Streck, Inc. v. Ryan" on Justia Law

The parties in this case entered into a settlement agreement in 2005 to resolve a longstanding water rights dispute between their respective parcels, providing that future disputes would be resolved by mediation and, if necessary, binding arbitration before a retired judge with water law expertise in San Diego County. The agreement included provisions for attorney fees for the prevailing party in certain circumstances. In 2016, a new dispute arose over groundwater resources and the parties proceeded to arbitration. During the arbitration, the arbitrator withdrew after Lodge filed demands for disqualification, leaving the dispute unresolved. While the Barbanell entities sought a replacement arbitrator, Lodge initiated a separate lawsuit asserting the same claims as those in arbitration. The Barbanell entities then filed a distinct action, petitioning the Superior Court of San Diego County to appoint a new arbitrator.The Superior Court of San Diego County granted the Barbanell entities’ petition to appoint a new arbitrator and entered judgment in their favor, designating them as prevailing parties entitled to seek attorney fees. Upon subsequent motion, the court found that the settlement agreement entitled the Barbanell entities to recover reasonable attorney fees incurred in obtaining the appointment of a new arbitrator, and awarded them $68,800 in fees. An amended judgment was issued to reflect this award.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed only the postjudgment award of attorney fees. It affirmed the Superior Court’s decision, holding that the Barbanell entities were prevailing parties in the discrete action to appoint an arbitrator and were entitled to attorney fees under the settlement agreement and Civil Code section 1717. The appellate court clarified that the presence of related claims pending elsewhere did not preclude a fee award for this separate, concluded action. View "Barbanell v. Lodge" on Justia Law

The Clark County Department of Family Services filed a petition under Nevada law seeking protection for three minor children, alleging they were in need of protection from their father and stepmother. The allegations against the stepmother were withdrawn prior to trial. The juvenile court in Clark County conducted a full evidentiary hearing regarding the father and ultimately found that the allegations were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence, resulting in dismissal of the petition against him.Following this dismissal, both the Department and the minor children appealed the juvenile court’s order to the Supreme Court of Nevada. However, concerns arose regarding the appealability of such an order, as prior precedent—specifically In re A.B., 128 Nev. 764—held that orders from juvenile proceedings concerning child custody were not substantively appealable under Nevada Rule of Appellate Procedure (NRAP) 3A. The Supreme Court temporarily halted the appeal and directed appellants to show cause why jurisdiction existed.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Nevada found that the jurisdictional analysis in In re A.B. was flawed. The court determined that an order completely dismissing and thus finally resolving a petition for child protection under NRS Chapter 432B meets the definition of a final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(1), because it disposes of all issues in the case. The court overruled In re A.B. to the extent that it held such orders were unappealable, clarifying that NRAP 3A(b)(1) allows an appeal from a final judgment entered by a district court—even when it arises from juvenile proceedings involving child custody. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Nevada held that the order dismissing the petition is appealable and allowed the appeal to proceed. View "IN RE: N.D." on Justia Law

Tony petitioned for formal probate of his mother Judith’s will and codicil, which left her entire estate to him and specifically disinherited her other children, Rick, Sandy, and Beth. The siblings objected, alleging that the will was the product of undue influence, among other claims. The dispute centered on family dynamics and prior business conflicts between Tony and Rick, including previous litigation over property and asset division. In the prior case, the court made adverse findings about Tony’s credibility and honesty regarding his dealings with Rick.The siblings, as respondents, successfully moved in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Todd County, for the admission of the prior court’s findings and conclusions under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, arguing these were relevant to the undue influence claim. The circuit court admitted almost all of the findings from the prior case as conclusively established, including negative credibility determinations about Tony. The jury in the undue influence trial was instructed to accept these findings as true, and ultimately found that Tony had unduly influenced Judith, invalidating the will.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed whether the circuit court properly applied collateral estoppel. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court erred by admitting the prior findings wholesale, as the issues in the prior litigation were not identical to those in the undue influence case and the credibility determinations were not essential to the prior judgment. The Supreme Court found this error was prejudicial, as it likely impacted the jury’s assessment of Tony’s credibility, a central issue in the undue influence claim. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. View "Estate Of O'Neill" on Justia Law

Two competing software companies specializing in business process management platforms were embroiled in a dispute after one company's employee, acting as a covert consultant, obtained confidential information about the other’s products. The employee, who had access through a third-party government contractor, provided the competitor with detailed tutorials, internal documentation, and live presentations designed to help the competitor improve its own offerings and target the rival’s weaknesses in sales efforts. The information was disseminated within the competitor’s organization and used both to inform product development and to shape competitive strategy. The aggrieved company discovered the espionage years later when the consultant’s handler joined its staff and disclosed the conduct. The company then pursued claims for trade secret misappropriation under the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act, among other causes.The Circuit Court for Fairfax County oversaw a lengthy trial and issued several key evidentiary and instructional rulings: it excluded evidence about the number of users who had access to the alleged trade secrets, limited the competitor’s damages defense based on a discovery response, prohibited the competitor from authenticating certain software versions except on a specified laptop, and issued a damages instruction that shifted the burden of proof to the competitor. The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded substantial damages. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the jury’s finding of misappropriation but reversed the judgment, holding that the circuit court committed multiple errors in its evidentiary rulings and jury instructions, and remanded for a new trial on the trade secret claims.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment. It held that the circuit court erred by shifting the burden of proof for damages to the defendant, by limiting the defendant’s damages evidence, by precluding authentication of software exhibits, and by instructing the jury that the number of people with access to the trade secrets was irrelevant. The Supreme Court ordered a remand for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Appian Corporation v. Pegasystems" on Justia Law

Employees of a property management company reported to the Minnesota Attorney General that their employer had failed to pay legally required wages and overtime, allegedly using subsidiaries to evade wage laws. Acting on these complaints, the Attorney General issued a civil investigative demand (CID) to the company and its subsidiaries in October 2019, seeking documents relevant to wage practices. The company challenged the CID in court, resulting in over three years of litigation before it ultimately provided the requested documents in July 2022. Following the conclusion of the CID litigation, the Attorney General filed a civil enforcement action in June 2023, alleging violations of the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act (MFLSA) related to wage theft.The Ramsey County District Court granted the company’s motion to dismiss the MFLSA claim under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(e), finding the claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Minn. Stat. § 541.07(5). The court determined the claim accrued by late 2019, when the employees first came forward. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the Attorney General’s argument that litigation over the CID should toll the limitations period, and citing a lack of precedent for such tolling.On review, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that litigation over a civil investigative demand issued under Minn. Stat. § 8.31 tolls the statute of limitations for a subsequent civil enforcement action, provided the CID and the enforcement action concern the same alleged unlawful practice. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of the MFLSA claim and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings, establishing a narrow rule that tolling applies specifically during CID litigation under the Attorney General’s investigative authority. View "State of Minnesota v. Madison Equities, Inc." on Justia Law

Ousmane Savane, a citizen of Côte d’Ivoire, entered the United States in 2012 through the Diversity Visa Program. During his initial application (the eDV), and in his subsequent Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration (DS-230), Savane did not disclose that he had two children, despite both forms requiring such information. He later explained that he omitted his children on the advice of a “coach” who helped him complete the forms, believing that doing so would facilitate his entry for financial reasons. The consular officer who interviewed Savane did not ask about his children, and Savane was admitted as a lawful permanent resident.In 2020, Savane applied for naturalization and disclosed all four of his children. He initially denied, but later admitted, that he had previously lied to U.S. officials to gain immigration benefits. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied his naturalization application, finding that his earlier omissions rendered him not “lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” Savane appealed administratively, arguing that the omissions were immaterial, but USCIS affirmed its denial. He then petitioned for review in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which granted summary judgment for the government, holding that Savane’s omission was material because it shut off a line of inquiry relevant to his eligibility.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that, under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2), an omission from an immigration application is material if it prevents investigation into a relevant aspect of eligibility, regardless of whether the omitted information would have led to denial. The court concluded that Savane’s failure to disclose his children precluded the consular officer from properly evaluating his eligibility, particularly regarding whether he was likely to become a public charge. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment for the government. View "Savane v. Secretary United States Department of Homeland Sec" on Justia Law

A group of patients civilly committed under Minnesota law challenged the state's sex offender treatment program, alleging inadequate treatment and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The lawsuit was brought as a class action, initially filed pro se and later supported by counsel through the Minnesota Federal Bar Association’s Pro Se Project. During the litigation, the patients, citing indigence and the need for expert testimony, requested court-appointed experts under Federal Rule of Evidence 706. Both parties jointly nominated experts, and in 2013, they recommended a 50/50 split of expert costs. However, the court initially allocated all costs to the defendants, reserving the option to adjust later.After more than a decade of litigation, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled in favor of the state officials on all claims. The officials then sought to recover litigation costs, including expert fees, as prevailing parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). The district court declined to award any costs to the officials, citing the plaintiffs' indigence, good faith, public importance of the issues, vigorous litigation, difficulty and closeness of the issues, and potential chilling effect on future litigants.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that the district court failed to consider the plaintiffs’ 2013 recommendation to share expert costs and did not adequately weigh their acknowledged ability to pay half at that time. The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s cost judgment and remanded with instructions to award half of the expert costs to the prevailing defendants, to be assessed jointly and severally against the named plaintiffs. View "Karsjens v. Gandhi" on Justia Law

Indiana amended its laws in 2022 to prohibit and criminalize the use of telehealth and telemedicine for abortions, requiring that abortion-inducing drugs be dispensed and consumed in person by a physician in a hospital or qualified surgical center. The Satanic Temple, a Massachusetts-based religious nonprofit, operates a telehealth abortion clinic serving only patients in New Mexico but seeks to extend these services to its Indiana members. It does not run, nor intends to operate, an in-person abortion clinic in Indiana or maintain ties to Indiana hospitals or surgical centers. The Temple filed suit against the Indiana Attorney General and Marion County Prosecutor, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the criminal statute (§ 16-34-2-7(a)) and to obtain declaratory relief under Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana reviewed the case and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The court found that the Satanic Temple failed to identify any specific member who suffered an injury from the challenged law, thus lacking associational standing. It also held that the Temple itself lacked standing, as it could not show an injury in fact and could not demonstrate that favorable relief would redress its alleged harms due to other Indiana laws independently barring its intended conduct.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Seventh Circuit held that the Satanic Temple lacked both associational and individual standing. The Temple failed to identify a specific injured member and relied only on statistical probabilities and generalized claims of stigmatic injury, which were insufficient. Additionally, the Temple did not present concrete plans to violate the law, and even if § 16-34-2-7(a) were enjoined, other statutes would independently prevent its telehealth abortion services in Indiana. Thus, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Satanic Temple, Inc. v Rokita" on Justia Law

Several individuals and organizations sought to circulate a petition to place a campaign finance ordinance on Houston’s ballot, but the city’s charter at that time required petition circulators to be both residents and registered voters of Houston. The plaintiffs did not meet these requirements. They notified the city of their intent to circulate petitions and challenge the constitutionality of the residency and voter registration requirements. The city initially did not clarify its position but later stated it would not enforce the challenged provisions. Despite this, the plaintiffs filed suit in federal court, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, arguing that the requirements were unconstitutional under Supreme Court precedent.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas first granted the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the requirements. After the petition circulation period ended, the court dismissed the claims as moot following a stipulation by the parties. The plaintiffs moved to alter or amend the judgment, which was denied. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the plaintiffs had standing and that the case was not moot, and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court granted the plaintiffs declaratory relief and, after the city repealed the challenged provisions, awarded the plaintiffs attorneys’ fees as prevailing parties. However, in a subsequent appeal, a different Fifth Circuit panel concluded there was no case or controversy because all parties agreed the provisions were unconstitutional, vacated the judgment, and remanded for dismissal.On remand, the district court vacated the attorneys’ fees award and ordered reimbursement to the city. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed this ruling, holding that after the prior appellate decision vacated the underlying merits judgment for lack of a case or controversy, there was no basis for a fee award under Rule 60(b)(5). The court also clarified that the city was not required to appeal the fee award directly, and the plaintiffs’ claims of prejudice were unavailing. View "Pool v. City of Houston" on Justia Law