Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Villa Zinfandel, LLC purchased real property in Napa County from a party that acquired it at a foreclosure sale. Christopher Bearman was occupying the property at the time. Villa Zinfandel filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Bearman as a limited civil action, seeking possession and holdover damages, as required by law after purchasing foreclosed property. Meanwhile, a third party, Edward Sanchez, filed a separate unlimited civil action to set aside the trustee’s deed upon sale, alleging violations in the foreclosure process. Bearman moved to consolidate the two actions, arguing that the issues overlapped. The trial court ultimately consolidated both cases for all purposes.Following consolidation, the trial court granted summary adjudication against Sanchez on his claim to unwind the foreclosure, while Villa Zinfandel’s unlawful detainer claim proceeded to trial. At trial, Villa Zinfandel introduced recorded foreclosure documents and the trustee’s deed upon sale. Bearman objected to the admission of these documents, arguing lack of foundation and hearsay, and contended that Villa Zinfandel needed to prove the truth of the recorded statements, not just their existence. The trial court overruled these objections, took judicial notice of the documents’ existence (but not their truth), and found in favor of Villa Zinfandel, awarding damages exceeding the then-applicable $35,000 cap for limited civil actions.On appeal, Bearman argued to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, that the trial court erred by admitting the recorded documents and by awarding damages above the jurisdictional limit. The appellate court held that the trial court properly took judicial notice of the existence and facial contents of the recorded foreclosure documents and correctly applied legal presumptions regarding the regularity of the trustee’s sale. The court also held that, after consolidation for all purposes with an unlimited civil action, the case was no longer subject to the damages cap for limited civil actions. The judgment in favor of Villa Zinfandel was affirmed. View "Villa Zinfandel v. Bearman" on Justia Law

Jerome and Shaun Cohen operated a Ponzi scheme through their companies, EquityBuild, Inc. and EquityBuild Finance, LLC, from 2010 to 2018. They solicited funds from individual investors and institutional lenders, promising high returns secured by real estate, primarily in Chicago. In reality, the Cohens used new investors’ funds to pay earlier investors and overvalued properties to retain excess capital. By 2018, the scheme collapsed, leaving over $75 million in unpaid obligations. The Securities and Exchange Commission intervened, obtaining a temporary restraining order and having a receiver appointed to liquidate assets and distribute proceeds to victims.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois oversaw the receivership and determined how proceeds from the sale of two properties—7749 South Yates and 5450 South Indiana—should be distributed. Both a group of individual investors and Shatar Capital Partners claimed priority to the proceeds, with Shatar arguing its mortgages were recorded before those of the individual investors. The district court found that Shatar was on inquiry notice of the individual investors’ preexisting interests and thus not entitled to priority, limiting all claimants’ recoveries to their contributed principal, minus any amounts previously received.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s distribution order. The appellate court affirmed, holding that under Illinois law, Shatar was on inquiry notice of the individual investors’ interests in both properties at the time it invested, given multiple red flags about the properties’ financing and EquityBuild’s business model. As a result, the individual investors were entitled to priority in the distribution of proceeds. The court also found Shatar’s challenge to the distribution plan moot, as there were insufficient funds to benefit Shatar after satisfying the investors’ claims. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Duff" on Justia Law

The plaintiff stayed at a hotel in San Diego in 2017 and alleged that he suffered injuries due to a bed bug infestation in his room. He filed a lawsuit against the hotel operator and associated parties, asserting several causes of action, including negligence, battery, and breach of warranty of habitability. After the case was filed, the plaintiff dismissed two defendants without prejudice. However, he delayed serving the main defendants for nearly three years. Once served, the defendants initiated discovery, but the plaintiff repeatedly failed to provide responses, even after extensions were granted and orders were issued by the court compelling compliance.The Superior Court of San Diego County, after multiple unopposed motions by the defendants and ongoing failures by the plaintiff and his counsel to comply with discovery orders, granted terminating sanctions. This resulted in dismissal of the action with prejudice and imposition of monetary sanctions. The plaintiff’s attorney argued that he lost contact with his client and sought relief under section 473(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming attorney fault. The Superior Court set aside one dismissal order but ultimately denied relief from the terminating sanctions, finding the plaintiff and his attorney failed to justify their conduct or show the neglect was excusable. The court reaffirmed its dismissal and monetary sanctions.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, held that the mandatory relief provision of section 473(b) applies to an unopposed order granting dismissal as a terminating sanction. However, the court concluded the plaintiff did not meet his burden to demonstrate entitlement to relief, as the record showed he did not explain his lack of communication with counsel and his attorney’s failure to act was deliberate rather than inadvertent. The appellate court also found no abuse of discretion in the imposition of terminating sanctions and affirmed the judgment. View "Rodriguez v. WNT, Inc." on Justia Law

A group of homeowners, all over the age of 65, entered into contracts for energy efficiency improvements to their homes under California's Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. This program allows local governments to offer financing for such improvements, with repayment made through voluntary special assessments added to the homeowners’ property tax bills. Most local governments contracted private companies to administer these PACE loans. The homeowners alleged that these private administrators failed to comply with consumer protection and lending laws applicable to consumer lenders, such as providing required warnings and avoiding prohibited security interests. They filed suit under the Unfair Competition Law, seeking injunctive relief and restitution, including the return of assessment monies paid and prohibitions on future collection of delinquent assessments unless the assessments were removed from their properties.The San Diego County Superior Court sustained the defendants’ demurrers, concluding that the plaintiffs were required to exhaust administrative tax remedies before pursuing their claims in court. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, reasoning that because PACE assessments are collected as part of property taxes and the relief sought would invalidate those assessments, plaintiffs first needed to pay the assessments and seek administrative relief through the established tax refund procedures.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to determine whether plaintiffs were required to follow statutory procedures for challenging taxes. The court held that when plaintiffs’ claims effectively seek to invalidate PACE assessments or prevent their future collection, they must first pay the assessments and pursue administrative tax remedies. However, the court also held that plaintiffs are not required to use tax challenge procedures for claims that do not directly or indirectly challenge a tax, such as those solely addressing the administration of the PACE program. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case remanded to consider whether plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaints to state only non-tax-related claims. View "Morgan v. Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc." on Justia Law

Zakaria Allaf and Stephanie Crosby rented an apartment from Robb Crawford and later from Shoreline Holdings Five, LLC, with the lease requiring a $1,795 security deposit. The tenants experienced a persistent cockroach infestation and, after unsuccessful remediation attempts, agreed with Crawford to terminate the lease early in January 2022. Upon moving out, Allaf and Crosby were assured by Crawford’s agent that the security deposit would be addressed within thirty days, but no response was received. Eventually, Crawford’s attorney informed Crosby that the deposit was being withheld because Crawford did not consider the lease terminated.Allaf and Crosby filed a small claims action in the Maine District Court (Portland), alleging wrongful retention of the security deposit and breach of the implied warranty of habitability. After a trial, the District Court found in their favor, awarding $6,000 in damages (including double damages for the security deposit and damages for breach of habitability), plus attorney fees and costs. Shoreline appealed to the Cumberland County Superior Court, which affirmed the judgment. Shoreline then appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting liability for wrongful retention and arguing that attorney fees should not be awarded in addition to the $6,000 statutory monetary limit for small claims actions.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment. It held that sufficient evidence supported the lower court’s finding that the lease had been terminated by agreement and that Shoreline failed to return the security deposit or provide a written explanation. The Court also held that attorney fees awarded under a fee-shifting statute such as 14 M.R.S. § 6034(2) are considered “costs” and are not included within the $6,000 small claims cap set by 14 M.R.S. § 7482. Thus, the award of attorney fees in addition to $6,000 in damages was proper. Judgment was affirmed. View "Allaf v. Shoreline Holdings Five, LLC" on Justia Law

Four property-specific limited liability companies owned real estate in Wisconsin, which was leased to skilled nursing facilities operated by Kevin Breslin through his company, KBWB Operations, LLC. Breslin and his co-guarantors executed personal guaranties ensuring payment and performance under the leases. The nursing facility tenants defaulted on their rent obligations starting in 2018 and subsequently lost their operating licenses after a court-appointed receiver moved residents out. The tenants also failed to complete a purchase option for the properties, triggering a liquidated damages clause. Plaintiffs later sold the properties at a loss.The plaintiffs sued Breslin, his company, and co-guarantors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to enforce the guaranties and recover damages. During the litigation, plaintiffs discovered that one co-guarantor was a California citizen, which destroyed complete diversity and thus federal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs moved to dismiss this non-diverse defendant, arguing he was not indispensable because the guaranties provided for joint and several liability. The district court agreed and dismissed him. Breslin did not oppose the dismissal. Plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment; Breslin, facing criminal charges, invoked the Fifth Amendment and presented no evidence on liability or damages. The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs and awarded nearly $22 million in damages across several categories.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that jurisdiction was proper because the dismissed co-guarantor was not an indispensable party under Rule 19, given joint and several liability. The court affirmed the district court’s findings on most damages but vacated the awards for accelerated rent under one lease (pending further consideration of its enforceability as a liquidated damages clause) and for liquidated damages related to the purchase option (finding it unenforceable as a penalty). The case was remanded for recalculation of damages consistent with these holdings. In all other respects, the judgment was affirmed. View "CCP Golden/7470 LLC v. Breslin" on Justia Law

A fire at a property in Washington, D.C. in 2015 resulted in the deaths of two tenants. The parents of the tenants sued both the property’s record owner, Len Salas, and his father, Max Salas, who managed the property, for wrongful death in a D.C. trial court. The jury found both defendants jointly and severally liable and awarded multimillion-dollar verdicts. After the verdict, both Len and Max filed for bankruptcy in different jurisdictions. In Max’s bankruptcy case, the court held he was entitled to an unlimited homestead exemption in the property. Subsequently, in Len’s bankruptcy case in Tennessee, the estate’s interest in certain avoidance and recovery rights under the Bankruptcy Code was sold at auction, with the plaintiffs purchasing those rights.The plaintiffs then filed an adversary proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, seeking to avoid transfers and recover property. The bankruptcy court denied their motion for summary judgment and granted partial summary judgment to Max on the fraudulent conveyance claims. Plaintiffs sought and received leave from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to pursue an interlocutory appeal. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s partial grant and denial of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, but did not certify the order for appeal or designate it as a final order.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that it lacked jurisdiction. The court determined that because the district court’s order was neither final nor properly certified for interlocutory appeal, it could not exercise appellate jurisdiction under the relevant statutes. As a result, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Brekelmans v. Salas" on Justia Law

A disabled individual, who uses a wheelchair, visited a toy store owned by a business entity in Los Angeles. He claimed that the sales counter was too high for him to use comfortably, allegedly deterring him from making a purchase. The individual subsequently filed lawsuits under both federal and state law, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The federal court dismissed the ADA claim as moot after the store remedied the alleged violation, and the state court tried the Unruh Act claim. During trial, the plaintiff testified about his intent to shop and the difficulties encountered, but the store presented evidence that no such customer was seen and that employees would have greeted him.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County presided over the state Unruh Act action. The judge found the plaintiff's testimony not credible, determining that he entered the store solely to look for ADA violations rather than to shop, and did not suffer any difficulty or denial of access. Judgment was entered for the store, and the plaintiff did not appeal. The store then filed a malicious prosecution action against the plaintiff and his attorneys, alleging they pursued claims knowing essential facts refuted their allegations. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they had probable cause and acted without malice. The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants, declining to apply issue preclusion to the prior judge’s factual findings.Upon appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Three, held that the prior judge’s findings regarding the plaintiff’s intentions and actions were entitled to preclusive effect and sufficient to raise triable issues of fact about probable cause and malice as to the plaintiff. However, the appellate court found no similar evidence against the attorneys, as they relied on information provided by the plaintiff. The judgment was reversed as to the plaintiff and affirmed as to the attorneys. View "Landis' Labyrinth v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

A homeowners association in San Diego, governed by the Davis-Stirling Act and its own bylaws, held a recall election to remove a board director. The association distributed recall ballot materials, including a candidate statement from the sole candidate seeking to replace the director if the recall succeeded. The sitting director sought to include her own statement in these materials to advocate against her removal but was denied by the elections inspector, who reasoned that only candidate statements were included. The association’s election rules defined “association media” to exclude candidate forms or statements attached to ballots.Previously, the Superior Court of San Diego County, in a separate action brought by the same director, found no violation of the statutory equal-access requirement for association media, concluding that all candidates had equal opportunity to submit statements using the association’s forms for regular board elections. Following the recall, the director filed a new petition and complaint challenging the association’s refusal to distribute her statement, alleging violations of Civil Code section 5105, various Corporations Code provisions, and negligence. After a bench trial, the Superior Court again ruled for the association and the inspector, finding the candidate statement was not “association media” under the relevant statute and that the recall vote met statutory requirements.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reversed. It held that “association media” as used in Civil Code section 5105 does encompass ballot materials containing candidate statements distributed by the association during an election. The court concluded the director was entitled to equal access to these materials to advocate her position. The court remanded for further proceedings to determine, under Civil Code section 5145, whether the association’s failure to provide equal access affected the election outcome. The judgment was reversed and remanded with directions. View "Arroyo v. Pacific Ridge Neighborhood Homeowners Assn." on Justia Law

A former deputy executive director of a bi-state agency, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, was prosecuted in connection with the “Bridgegate” scandal. Although convicted, his convictions were ultimately vacated and the indictment dismissed. Having incurred approximately $4 million in legal expenses, he sought indemnification from the Port Authority under its bylaws, which provide for reimbursement of legal costs upon acquittal or dismissal of criminal charges, subject to certain notice and procedural requirements.After the Port Authority denied his request for indemnification, he commenced suit in New York state court. The Port Authority removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. There, the Port Authority argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff had not satisfied a condition precedent for suit—specifically, timely delivery of the judgment of acquittal per the bylaws—meaning that the necessary waiver of sovereign immunity had not occurred. The district court agreed, dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and subsequently denying leave to amend the complaint as futile, finding that the plaintiff had failed to plead compliance with the condition precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the dismissal. It held that the Port Authority does not possess state sovereign immunity from suit in federal court, as established by the Supreme Court in Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., and therefore a failure to plead waiver of sovereign immunity does not deprive the federal court of subject matter jurisdiction. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings, overruling prior circuit precedent to the contrary. The court also vacated the denial of leave to amend, clarifying that compliance with contractual or statutory conditions is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional prerequisite. View "Baroni v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey" on Justia Law