Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Edward T. Saadi, a licensed attorney proceeding pro se, obtained a $90,000 judgment against Pierre Maroun and Maroun’s International, LLC (MILLC) following a jury verdict in a federal defamation suit. Despite the judgment, Saadi was unable to collect payment for nine years. In 2018, Saadi discovered information suggesting Maroun had transferred $250,000 from his personal account to MILLC, allegedly to evade the judgment. Saadi claimed these funds were used to purchase a condominium titled to MILLC but used as Maroun’s residence, and to pay Maroun’s personal expenses. Saadi initiated proceedings supplementary under Florida law, seeking to void the transfer and recover assets.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida allowed Saadi to file an impleader complaint against Maroun and MILLC, asserting claims for fraudulent transfer and actual and constructive fraud under Florida statutes. Saadi also sought sanctions when MILLC failed to produce a representative for deposition, but the district court denied the motion, finding the individual was not a managing agent of MILLC. Ultimately, the district court granted summary judgment for Maroun and MILLC, ruling that Saadi’s claims were time-barred under Florida’s statutes of repose and limitations, and that tolling provisions did not apply. The court also found that the remedies Saadi sought were unavailable under the relevant statutes.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings. Finding that several dispositive questions of Florida law lacked controlling precedent and were subject to conflicting interpretations by Florida’s intermediate appellate courts, the Eleventh Circuit certified five questions to the Florida Supreme Court. The court deferred its decision pending the Florida Supreme Court’s response to the certified questions. View "Saadi v. Maroun" on Justia Law

After the death of Marjorie Johnson in 2020, her daughter, Rita Johnson, was appointed as executrix of her estate by the Wayne County, Michigan probate court. Rita initiated probate proceedings to determine whether certain assets belonged to the estate or to the Johnson Family Trust, which had a provision requiring arbitration of disputes. Amos C. Johnson, Marjorie’s son and trustee of the Trust, sought to compel arbitration in state court, but the request was denied. Subsequently, Amos and the Trust filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, seeking to compel arbitration of the probate dispute under § 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).The district court ordered the plaintiffs to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing the probate exception, the prior-exclusive-jurisdiction doctrine, and potential lack of diversity. The court ultimately dismissed the case, finding that the FAA does not provide an independent basis for federal question jurisdiction and that the probate proceedings were in rem, meaning the federal court would improperly interfere with property under the state probate court’s control.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Sixth Circuit held that federal courts may only compel arbitration under § 4 of the FAA if they would have jurisdiction over the underlying dispute. Because the probate proceedings were purely matters of state law and involved property already under the state court’s jurisdiction, the federal court lacked both federal question and diversity jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that the federal court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to compel arbitration of the state probate proceedings. View "Johnson v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In 2024, Minnesota enacted a law that revised the criteria for classifying independent contractors in the construction industry, expanding a previous nine-part test to a fourteen-part test. Several construction industry organizations and a general contractor challenged the law, arguing that certain provisions were unconstitutionally vague and that the civil penalties authorized by the statute violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The plaintiffs specifically objected to requirements regarding written contracts, invoicing, expense responsibility, and profit or loss realization, as well as the potential for significant civil penalties for noncompliance.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the law. The court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims. The plaintiffs then appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the law, as they alleged specific conduct targeted by the statute and faced a credible threat of enforcement. However, the court concluded that the challenged statutory terms were sufficiently clear for people of ordinary intelligence and did not encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The court also determined that the plaintiffs’ excessive fines claim was premature, as no penalties had yet been imposed and Minnesota law requires a proportionality analysis before penalties are assessed. Because the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, the court found no basis for a preliminary injunction and affirmed the lower court’s judgment. View "MN Chapter of Assoc. Builders v. Blissenbach" on Justia Law

A creditor obtained a judgment against an individual debtor and later sought to collect on that judgment by garnishing the debtor’s alleged employer, a company. The creditor, as successor in interest to the original plaintiff, filed a petition for garnishment against the company, asserting it employed or was otherwise indebted to the debtor. The company was served with the petition and interrogatories but did not timely file answers in court. However, before a hearing on the creditor’s motion for judgment pro confesso, the company provided sworn answers directly to the creditor, stating it never employed or owed anything to the debtor and identifying the debtor’s actual employer. The company did not file these answers into the court record. At the hearing, the court was not informed of the company’s responses and, based on the lack of record answers, rendered a judgment against the company for the full amount owed by the debtor.Subsequently, the company moved to reopen the garnishment proceedings and set aside the judgment, arguing it had provided the necessary information to the creditor before the hearing. The city court granted the motion and vacated its prior judgment, finding it had not been made aware of the company’s responses. On appeal, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, reversed and reinstated the original judgment against the company, holding that the relevant statute did not permit reopening a judgment pro confesso under these circumstances.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case to determine whether La.R.S. 13:3923, as amended, allows a trial court discretion to reopen and reconsider a judgment pro confesso against a garnishee. The court held that, although the statute is clear and unambiguous, its application in this case would lead to absurd results because the trial court’s original judgment was based on an omission of material information. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and reinstated the city court’s judgment vacating the original garnishment judgment, allowing the company an opportunity to prove it was not the debtor’s employer. View "FIRST PAY, INC. VS. DUKES" on Justia Law

A company acquired a tax title to certain immovable property in St. Martin Parish, Louisiana, after the original owners failed to pay property taxes. Following the expiration of the redemptive period, the company mailed post-tax sale notice to the executrix of the former owner’s succession at the address listed in the succession proceedings. The company then filed a petition to quiet title, and the executrix was personally served. In response, she filed a reconventional demand seeking to annul the tax sale, alleging she had not received adequate pre-tax and post-tax sale notice. The City, which had previously held a small interest in the property, was also named as a third-party defendant.The 16th Judicial District Court sustained exceptions of prescription raised by the company and the City, dismissing the executrix’s claims as untimely. On appeal, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal reversed, finding the reconventional demand was timely because it was filed within six months of service of the petition to quiet title, as required by La. R.S. 47:2266. The appellate court also held that the failure to provide pre-tax sale notice could render the tax sale absolutely null, and that the company and the City bore the burden of proving the reconventional demand was prescribed.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and held that, following the 2008 revision to Louisiana’s tax sale statutes, failure to provide pre-tax sale notice for tax sales occurring after January 1, 2009, no longer results in an absolute nullity. Instead, such defects are relative nullities, subject to specific prescriptive periods under La. R.S. 47:2287. The Court further held that a nullity action brought as a reconventional demand in a quiet title action must also comply with the six-month limitation in La. R.S. 47:2266. The Court affirmed the appellate ruling regarding prescription but reversed on the issue of absolute nullity, remanding for further proceedings. View "BELAIRE DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION, LLC VS. SUCCESSION OF SHELTON" on Justia Law

The plaintiff filed a civil action against two business entities, seeking relief in the Parish of Orleans. When initiating the lawsuit, the plaintiff requested service of citation on the defendants and paid all fees required by the clerk of court at the time of filing. Subsequently, the sheriff’s office sent an additional invoice for service fees, which the plaintiff paid after the ninety-day period prescribed by law for requesting service. The defendants argued that the plaintiff failed to properly request service within the statutory period because not all service-related fees were paid within ninety days.The Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans denied the defendants’ exception of insufficiency of service of process and their motion for involuntary dismissal, finding that the plaintiff’s timely request for service, accompanied by payment of the initial fees, satisfied the statutory requirement. The defendants appealed, and the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1201(C) does not require payment of all service fees within the ninety-day period, only that service be requested.The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted certiorari to resolve conflicting appellate decisions on this issue. The court held that Article 1201(C) requires only that a plaintiff “request” service of citation within ninety days of filing the petition, and does not mandate that all service-related fees be paid within that period. The court reasoned that the statutory language is unambiguous and that payment requirements are addressed elsewhere in Louisiana law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed the judgment of the appellate court in favor of the plaintiff. View "DAROUSE VS. P.J.'S COFFEE OF NEW ORLEANS, LLC" on Justia Law

The dispute arose when a property owner obtained a building permit from a city and was required, under the city’s standard procedures, to submit a form containing financial information about subcontractors before the city would conduct necessary inspections and issue a certificate of occupancy. The property owner refused to provide the requested information, leading the city to withhold inspections. As a result, the property owner filed suit, seeking a declaratory judgment that the city lacked authority to require such information and requesting an order compelling the city to perform the inspections. The owner also sought damages for delays allegedly caused by the city’s refusal to inspect.After the property owner settled with the city’s building inspector, the case proceeded in the Baldwin Circuit Court. The jury was asked to decide both the declaratory judgment and damages claims, ultimately finding in favor of the property owner and awarding over $3.5 million in damages. The city appealed. The Supreme Court of Alabama, in a prior decision, held that the damages claim was barred by substantive immunity and reversed the damages award, but did not address the declaratory judgment claim, remanding the case for further proceedings.On remand, the Baldwin Circuit Court entered judgment for the property owner on the declaratory judgment claim but did not award damages. The city appealed again. The Supreme Court of Alabama held that, because the inspections had already been completed and all requested relief had been granted or resolved, no justiciable controversy remained. Therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter a declaratory judgment. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for dismissal. View "City of Orange Beach v. Boles" on Justia Law

A Georgia limited-liability company owned and operated a hotel in Birmingham, Alabama, which was subject to a $10,710,000 loan secured by a mortgage, an assignment of leases and rents, and other collateral. The loan was eventually assigned to a bank acting as trustee for a mortgage trust. After the hotel owner allegedly defaulted on its loan obligations and mismanaged the property, the bank filed a complaint in the Jefferson Circuit Court seeking the appointment of a receiver to manage the hotel and ensure payment of operating expenses. The court appointed a receiver and issued orders outlining the receiver’s duties, including managing the hotel and paying its expenses.Following the appointment, disputes arose between the hotel owner, the receiver, and the bank regarding whether the receiver was required to pay expenses incurred before the receivership began (“pre-receivership claims”). The hotel owner sought to compel the receiver to pay these claims, while the receiver and the bank objected, arguing that such payments could harm the receivership estate and improperly prioritize unsecured creditors over the secured lender. The circuit court ultimately issued an order in July 2024 clarifying that the receiver was required to pay pre-receivership expenses, prompting the receiver to appeal.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed whether the July 2024 order was an appealable interlocutory injunction and whether the circuit court erred in requiring the receiver to pay pre-receivership claims without regard to creditor priority. The court held that the order was injunctive in nature and appealable. It further held that the circuit court exceeded its discretion by requiring the receiver to pay all pre-receivership claims unconditionally, as this could harm the receivership estate and the interests of priority creditors. The Supreme Court reversed the July 2024 order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Kolessar v. SJP Investment Partners, LLC" on Justia Law

A law firm sought to recover over $1.7 million in fees and costs for representing the Los Angeles County Sheriff, Alex Villanueva, and the Sheriff’s Department in litigation initiated by the County of Los Angeles. Due to a conflict of interest, the County’s Board of Supervisors offered Villanueva independent counsel, allowing him to select his attorney but reserving discretion over compensation. Villanueva chose the law firm, which entered into an engagement agreement with him. The County, however, sent its own retainer agreement to the firm, which the firm refused to sign. The firm continued its representation but was never paid. After the firm demanded arbitration under its engagement agreement, the County and related plaintiffs filed suit seeking a declaration that no valid agreement to arbitrate existed and an injunction against the arbitration.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted a preliminary injunction, then summary judgment for the County plaintiffs, finding the Sheriff lacked authority to enter into the engagement agreement. The court denied the law firm’s post-judgment motion for leave to file a cross-complaint, citing both untimeliness and bad faith. The firm then filed a separate lawsuit against the County and related defendants, asserting breach of contract and related claims. The trial court sustained the County’s demurrer, dismissing the complaint with prejudice on grounds that the claims were compulsory cross-claims in the earlier action and for failure to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed both the judgment in the County’s action and the dismissal of the law firm’s separate lawsuit. The court held that the Sheriff did not have authority to retain counsel on his own; only the Board of Supervisors could contract for legal services. The law firm’s claims were barred as compulsory cross-claims and for failure to comply with the Government Claims Act. View "County of Los Angeles v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP" on Justia Law

A company based in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), which provides computer and networking services, entered into a contract with a California-based distributor of Microsoft products. The CNMI company sought to purchase Microsoft software to fulfill a government contract. After a series of communications and assurances that the software would meet the CNMI government’s specifications, the CNMI company paid over $800,000 to the distributor, which then delivered the software directly to the CNMI government. The software did not conform to the required specifications, leading the government to cancel its contract with the CNMI company and request a refund. The CNMI company, in turn, sought a refund from the distributor, which offered a partial refund minus a cancellation fee. The CNMI company objected and filed suit alleging fraud, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment.The United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction over the California distributor. The district court relied on a then-binding Ninth Circuit panel decision, which was later vacated and replaced by an en banc decision. The district court did not address whether the claims arose out of the distributor’s contacts with the CNMI or whether exercising jurisdiction would be reasonable.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the CNMI company alleged sufficient facts to establish specific personal jurisdiction over the California distributor. The court found that the distributor purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in the CNMI and purposefully directed its actions toward the CNMI. The court also concluded that the claims arose out of the distributor’s contacts with the CNMI and that exercising jurisdiction would not be unfair or unjust. View "SUPERTECH, INC. V. MY CHOICE SOFTWARE, LLC" on Justia Law