Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff leased a new vehicle from the defendant, but soon experienced persistent defects that could not be repaired despite multiple attempts. After the defendant failed to promptly replace the vehicle or provide restitution under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the plaintiff filed suit for breach of warranty, seeking damages and attorney fees. During litigation, the defendant made a statutory settlement offer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998, presenting two alternative sets of terms: a lump-sum payment or a reimbursement option requiring proof of damages, both accompanied by provisions for attorney fees and costs.In the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the jury awarded the plaintiff damages totaling $76,155.27, less than the lump-sum alternative in the defendant’s 998 offer. The trial court found the offer valid, imposed section 998’s cost-shifting penalty, limited plaintiff’s postoffer costs and attorney fees, and awarded defendant its postoffer costs. The plaintiff appealed, contesting the validity of the alternative-choice offer. The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s awards, finding the lump-sum alternative sufficiently certain but deemed alternative-choice offers categorically invalid for cost-shifting purposes.The Supreme Court of California reviewed whether an offer under section 998 that presents two independent, alternative sets of terms for acceptance is categorically invalid due to uncertainty. The Court held that such an alternative-choice offer can be valid if it clearly presents the alternatives and at least one alternative is sufficiently certain to permit accurate valuation at the time the offer is made. If the judgment or award does not exceed the highest valued, valid alternative, cost-shifting under section 998 is permitted. The Court affirmed the trial court’s award, but rejected the Court of Appeal’s categorical prohibition of alternative-choice offers under section 998. View "Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC" on Justia Law

Three individuals, all cast members of a reality television show, became embroiled in a public scandal when one, Rachel Leviss, had a secret sexual affair with another cast member, Tom Sandoval, who was in a relationship with fellow cast member Ariana Madix. The affair came to light when Sandoval’s phone fell into Madix’s possession during a public event. Upon accessing his phone—using a passcode known to her from their longstanding relationship—Madix discovered and recorded sexually explicit videos of Leviss that Sandoval had secretly made. Madix then sent these videos to Leviss and informed the show’s production team, after which the affair became widely publicized.Leviss filed a civil suit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County against Sandoval and Madix, asserting causes of action for violation of privacy and “revenge porn,” among others. She alleged that Madix had obtained and disseminated the explicit videos without consent, causing Leviss emotional and reputational harm. Madix responded with a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16), arguing that her conduct was protected as activity in connection with a public issue involving public figures. The Superior Court denied Madix’s motion, finding that the conduct did not constitute protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, and that the gravamen of Leviss’s claims was private conduct, not public commentary.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The appellate court affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling, holding that Madix failed to meet her burden to show that Leviss’s claims arose from constitutionally protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court determined that the unauthorized acquisition and dissemination of private sexual videos did not qualify as conduct in connection with a public issue or a matter of public interest as required by the statute. View "Leviss v. Madix" on Justia Law

Benjamin Hoskins and his wife, Leanne Rodgers, participated in a telemarketing operation that defrauded consumers of more than $130 million by selling worthless “business coaching” services. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) obtained a judgment against Hoskins for over $130 million and against Rodgers for approximately $1.5 million, reflecting the proceeds they received from the scam. Hoskins and Rodgers took steps to hinder collection by transferring assets through trusts and shell entities, including a residence in Las Vegas held via a trust in which they were both trustees and beneficiaries.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada initially blocked the FTC’s attempts to enforce the judgment, concluding that Nevada’s six-year statute of limitations for enforcement of judgments barred the FTC’s action against Rodgers. The court also quashed a writ of execution the FTC obtained under the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act (FDCPA), reasoning that Nevada law required a separate action to prove the trust holding the property was Rodgers’s alter ego before the property could be levied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed both of the district court’s rulings. The Ninth Circuit held that the FDCPA preempts inconsistent state statutes of limitations and has no time limit for collecting debts owed to the federal government by writ of execution. The court also determined that the judgment against Rodgers, which is payable to the FTC, qualifies as a “debt” under the FDCPA, regardless of whether the proceeds are ultimately distributed to victims. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit held that the FTC was not required to file a separate alter ego action under state law to levy property held in trust; under the FDCPA, the FTC may levy any property in which the judgment debtors have a substantial nonexempt interest. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. HOSKINS" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a private organization, brought suit under California’s Proposition 65 against several companies, alleging they failed to warn consumers about exposure to a chemical, DINP, in certain clutch and wallet products. Prior to this lawsuit, another private enforcer had brought a similar Proposition 65 action involving the same or similar products and chemical exposure, which resulted in a consent judgment requiring reformulation or labeling of the products and payment of civil penalties. The plaintiff in the current case argued that the earlier action did not specifically include the wallet and clutch products in its notice, and therefore the consent judgment should not bar its claims.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County sustained the defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend, dismissing the case. The court found the action was barred by res judicata, relying on the consent judgment from the prior Proposition 65 action, and also concluded there were defects in the plaintiff’s presuit notice. The court reasoned that both private enforcers, in bringing Proposition 65 claims, represented the public interest, creating privity between them. It also noted that even if the earlier notice had defects, the proper time to challenge that was before the consent judgment became final.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. The court held that the plaintiff was in privity with the prior enforcer because both acted in the public interest under Proposition 65, and that common-law res judicata principles apply to consent judgments in such cases. The court determined that any alleged defect in the earlier notice did not prevent the consent judgment from having claim-preclusive effect. The appellate court did not address the separate issue of defects in the plaintiff’s own presuit notice, as the res judicata ground was dispositive. View "Consumer Protection Group, LLC v. Signal Brands, LLC" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on allegations by a Minnesota-based health insurer that several related pharmaceutical companies carried out an unlawful scheme involving the distribution and sale of repackaged and adulterated oncology drugs. The scheme allegedly involved breaking sterile seals on medication vials, pooling overfill amounts—which were not intended for patient use—and creating pre-filled syringes that were then sold to healthcare providers. These syringes were ultimately administered to cancer patients, including many insured under programs operated by the plaintiff. The defendants did not themselves submit claims for reimbursement, but the plaintiff asserts it paid for treatments using these adulterated drugs, unaware of their compromised quality.Prior to this lawsuit, the scheme was the subject of other civil actions and federal investigations, including qui tam actions and a federal criminal prosecution. The defendants disclosed these investigations in annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the events received media attention beginning in 2012. In 2017, a related company pleaded guilty to federal charges, admitting to the repackaging scheme, and paid significant fines and settlements. The plaintiff filed suit in 2023, asserting claims for common-law fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of several Minnesota consumer protection statutes. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed the complaint, finding the claims were barred by the applicable six-year statute of limitations, and that the plaintiff had failed to sufficiently plead fraudulent concealment to toll the limitations period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. It concluded that publicly available disclosures and the plaintiff’s own allegations established that the plaintiff should have discovered its causes of action no later than 2016. Because the plaintiff did not file suit until 2023, its claims were untimely. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that all claims were barred by the statute of limitations. View "United HealthCare Services, Inc. v. AmerisourceBergen Corporation" on Justia Law

A private company operating an automated license plate recognition (ALPR) system collected and stored images of license plates and related data, including date, time, and location, from vehicles in public areas in California. The company maintained a written usage and privacy policy, posted on its website, which set out authorized uses of the ALPR information and procedures for access and security. A California resident whose license plate information was collected by this system filed a class action lawsuit, alleging that the company violated the ALPR statute by failing to meaningfully implement or publicly disclose a compliant usage and privacy policy, by failing to enact adequate security measures, and by improperly allowing customers to use the data for unauthorized purposes. The plaintiff claimed harm based on an asserted invasion of privacy due to the collection and storage of his information, but did not allege any unauthorized access, disclosure, or tangible injury.The Superior Court of San Diego County granted summary judgment to the company, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing because he had not suffered actual harm as required by the ALPR statute. The court also denied another class member’s ex parte application to intervene as a substitute plaintiff, partly because the application was untimely and partly because he too failed to demonstrate actual harm resulting from a statutory violation.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, affirmed both rulings. The appellate court held that standing to sue under the ALPR statute requires a showing of actual harm arising from a violation of the statute, not merely a statutory violation or a subjective sense of privacy invasion. The court concluded the plaintiff had not suffered actual harm, and therefore lacked standing. The appellate court also found no reversible error in the denial of the motion to intervene, as the movant failed to address all grounds for the trial court’s decision. View "Mata v. Digital Recognition Network, Inc." on Justia Law

Several Michigan residents purchased expensive solar-panel systems from a company that promised substantial reductions in their electricity bills. The company’s advertising, prepared in part by entities connected to Trivest Partners, promoted significant savings and government payments, but the plaintiffs experienced little to no reduction in their bills and, in some cases, saw increases. The company, which operated in both Michigan and Florida, later went bankrupt. Alleging fraud and racketeering violations, the plaintiffs brought a civil RICO action and a Michigan Consumer Protection Act claim against Trivest Partners, its affiliates (all Florida entities), and the company founder.In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the two Florida-based Trivest defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the civil RICO statute did not allow them to be sued in Michigan, as a court in Florida could exercise jurisdiction over all defendants. The district court denied the motion, holding that several practical factors—including the pending status of the case in Michigan, local counsel, and comparative convenience—favored retaining jurisdiction. The plaintiffs later added additional Trivest-related defendants, also Florida citizens, with the court again finding personal jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1965(b) de novo. The appellate court held that the district court’s reasons, grounded in convenience and practical considerations, were insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the “ends of justice require” standard under § 1965(b). The Sixth Circuit concluded that interests of convenience alone cannot justify asserting personal jurisdiction over defendants with no minimum contacts to the forum. The court reversed the district court’s order denying dismissal and vacated the order denying the Trivest defendants’ motions to compel arbitration. View "Hall v. Trivest Partners L.P." on Justia Law

Deque Systems Inc., a company specializing in web accessibility software, developed and registered multiple versions of its DevTools and Rules Help Pages products. To access these, users agreed not to copy, reverse-engineer, or otherwise misuse the software or its documentation. In 2021, BrowserStack, a competing firm, sought to develop its own accessibility testing tools. More than 100 BrowserStack employees created accounts with Deque—agreeing to Deque’s terms—and later, BrowserStack released an Accessibility Toolkit, which Deque alleged was developed by unlawfully copying and reverse-engineering DevTools and the Rules Help Pages.Deque filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, claiming copyright infringement, false advertising, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, and sought injunctive relief, damages, and other remedies. During discovery, Deque repeatedly failed to properly disclose its damages calculations and supporting evidence by the deadlines set in the court’s scheduling order. Despite several opportunities to supplement its disclosures and a late attempt to introduce expert testimony, Deque did not timely provide the required information. BrowserStack moved to exclude Deque’s damages evidence and for summary judgment. The district court granted these motions, finding that Deque’s noncompliance with disclosure rules was neither substantially justified nor harmless, and that Deque presented no evidence supporting injunctive or other relief.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding all evidence of Deque’s damages under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) due to repeated and unjustified failures to comply with disclosure requirements. The court also held that summary judgment for BrowserStack was warranted because Deque could not establish entitlement to injunctive, declaratory, or monetary relief. View "Deque Systems Inc. v. Browserstack, Inc." on Justia Law

A trucking company conducted background checks on a job applicant, both before and during his employment, using disclosure and authorization forms. The applicant alleged these forms did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and initiated a class action on behalf of similarly situated job seekers and employees. He asserted that the company obtained background checks without proper, legally compliant disclosures and authorizations, in violation of federal law.The San Mateo County Superior Court initially certified the class for claims under the FCRA. After the Fifth District Court of Appeal decided *Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc.*, which interpreted the FCRA as requiring plaintiffs to show concrete injury for standing in California courts, the defendant moved to decertify the class, arguing the applicant had not identified any actual harm. The Superior Court agreed, finding that the applicant’s confusion and lack of awareness about the background checks did not amount to concrete injury, and decertified the class.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. It held that California courts are not bound by Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which requires concrete injury in federal courts. The Court interpreted the FCRA’s language and legislative history to mean that statutory damages are available for willful violations, even absent proof of actual harm. It found that a statutory violation alone is sufficient to confer standing in California courts for FCRA claims, and that the applicant’s interest in his statutory rights was adequate. The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court’s order decertifying the class, holding that proof of actual injury is not required to maintain a class action under the FCRA in California state court. View "Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc." on Justia Law

A Florida attorney was retained by a consumer who was sued in small claims court for an alleged debt. The attorney attempted to resolve the case with the debt collector’s counsel before a scheduled pretrial conference and was told a settlement would be communicated to the court. Relying on this, he did not attend the conference. The court entered a default against the consumer for failure to appear. Despite assurances from opposing counsel that the default would be set aside, and after a settlement agreement was executed, the debt collector moved for a default judgment and the court entered a default final judgment against the consumer. The attorney spent significant time and effort remedying the situation, ultimately securing vacatur of the default judgment. He then brought suit in federal court in his own name, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Florida law, claiming personal injuries such as distress, embarrassment, and lost time.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the case, finding the attorney lacked statutory standing under both federal and state law because the alleged debt collection activities targeted his client, not him. The district court did not reach the merits of the state law claim because it found no standing.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the attorney had not alleged a concrete injury in fact sufficient to establish Article III standing. The court explained that any harm he experienced was derivative of his client’s injury and did not amount to a cognizable injury for standing purposes. The Eleventh Circuit therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, without reaching the merits of the statutory claims. View "Light v. LVNV Funding, LLC" on Justia Law