Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Michael Hermalyn, a former employee of DraftKings, left his position to join a rival company, Fanatics, based in California. DraftKings, headquartered in Massachusetts, claimed that Hermalyn's new role violated a noncompete agreement he had signed, which included a Massachusetts choice-of-law provision and a one-year noncompete clause. DraftKings sued Hermalyn in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for breach of the noncompete agreement.The district court sided with DraftKings, applying Massachusetts law to determine the enforceability of the noncompete agreement. The court found the noncompete enforceable and issued a preliminary injunction preventing Hermalyn from competing against DraftKings in the United States for one year. Hermalyn appealed, arguing that California law, which generally bans noncompetes, should apply instead of Massachusetts law. Alternatively, he argued that if Massachusetts law applied, the injunction should exclude California.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court examined whether the district judge abused her discretion in granting the preliminary injunction and whether she made any legal errors in applying Massachusetts law. The appellate court found that Massachusetts law was correctly applied, noting that Massachusetts generally respects choice-of-law provisions unless they violate a fundamental policy of another state with a materially greater interest. The court concluded that Hermalyn failed to demonstrate that California's interest in banning noncompetes was materially greater than Massachusetts's interest in enforcing them.The First Circuit also upheld the scope of the preliminary injunction, rejecting Hermalyn's argument to exclude California. The court reasoned that excluding California would undermine the effectiveness of the injunction, as Hermalyn's role involved interacting with clients in states where online sports betting is legal. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision and awarded costs to DraftKings. View "DraftKings Inc. v. Hermalyn" on Justia Law

Craig Reichel, a businessperson from Rochester, Minnesota, and his companies, including Reichel Foods, Inc., filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against the law firm Wendland Utz, LTD, and its former lawyer, Jerrie Hayes. Reichel alleged that despite an ultimately favorable outcome in prior litigation, the law firm’s negligence caused him to incur substantial attorney fees and costs. The underlying litigation involved a lawsuit filed by Craig’s brother, Bryan Reichel, claiming an equity interest in one of Craig’s companies. The district court issued several adverse rulings against Craig and his companies, leading to significant legal expenses. Eventually, the bankruptcy court confirmed Craig’s sole ownership of the companies, and the district court granted summary judgment in Craig’s favor.The Olmsted County District Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Wendland Utz, dismissing Reichel Foods’ professional negligence claim on the grounds that Reichel Foods could not demonstrate that, but for the law firm’s conduct, it would have been successful in the underlying litigation. The district court did not address Reichel Foods’ other claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, nor did it resolve the claims brought by Craig Reichel and his other companies.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to decide claims still pending in the district court. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ rulings on those claims. Regarding the professional negligence claim of Reichel Foods, the Supreme Court held that a successful outcome in the underlying litigation does not categorically bar a legal malpractice claim. The court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming summary judgment on Reichel Foods’ professional negligence claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Reichel vs. Wendland Utz, LTD" on Justia Law

In this case, Universal Development Corporation ("Universal"), Hatti Group RE, LLC ("Hatti Group"), and Harsha Hatti separately appealed judgments entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court in favor of Robbie Dellinger following a jury trial. The trial involved consolidated cases with claims asserted by Hatti, the Hatti Group, and Dellinger.The Jefferson Circuit Court had previously dismissed Universal from Dellinger's initial action against Hatti and the Hatti Group. However, Universal was later brought back into the litigation when Hatti and the Hatti Group filed a separate action against Dellinger, Universal, and others. The cases were consolidated, and Dellinger asserted a breach-of-contract cross-claim against Universal. The jury found in favor of Dellinger on his claims against Universal and Hatti, awarding him compensatory and punitive damages.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the appeals. It dismissed the appeals of Hatti Group and Hatti, noting that Hatti's appeal in Hatti v. Universal was invalid because no adverse judgment was entered against Hatti in that case. Hatti's appeal in Dellinger v. Hatti was dismissed as untimely because it was filed more than 42 days after the final judgment.Regarding Universal's appeal, the court reversed the judgment against Universal and rendered a judgment in its favor. The court held that Dellinger's breach-of-contract claim against Universal was void because it was based on work performed without a general contractor's license, violating Alabama's licensure statutes. The court concluded that Dellinger acted as a general contractor under the Personal Services Agreement with Hatti, and since Dellinger was unlicensed, the contract was void as a matter of public policy. Consequently, Universal had no legal obligation to support Dellinger in seeking payments under an unenforceable contract. View "Universal Development Corporation v. Dellinger" on Justia Law

In 2006, Lisa Wilson's late husband, Mason, purchased a home in Coventry, Rhode Island, financing it with a $150,000 mortgage. Both Mason and Lisa signed the mortgage agreement, but only Mason signed the promissory note. The mortgage agreement included covenants requiring the "Borrowers" to defend the title, pay property taxes, and discharge any superior liens. In 2007, Deutsche Bank acquired the mortgage and note. Mason defaulted on the mortgage payments, and the Wilsons failed to pay property taxes, leading to a tax sale in 2014. Birdsong Associates bought the property and later obtained a court decree extinguishing Deutsche Bank's mortgage lien. Birdsong then sold the property to Coventry IV-14, RIGP, which eventually sold it to Dunkin Engineering Solutions, LLC, a company formed by Mason's parents. After Mason's parents' deaths, Lisa became the sole owner of Dunkin.Deutsche Bank sued Lisa, Mason, and Dunkin in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, alleging breach of the mortgage covenants and seeking equitable relief. The district court granted summary judgment to Lisa and Dunkin, finding that the mortgage agreement had been extinguished by the 2016 court decree and that Deutsche Bank had no remaining contractual rights. The court also rejected Deutsche Bank's equitable claims, concluding that there was no evidence of a scheme to benefit Lisa and Mason and that no benefit had accrued to Dunkin or Lisa from Deutsche Bank's payments.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the mortgage agreement did not unambiguously bind Lisa to the covenants, and thus, Deutsche Bank could not enforce those covenants against her. The court also found that Deutsche Bank failed to establish a fiduciary or confidential relationship necessary for its equitable claims and that Deutsche Bank's payments did not unjustly enrich Dunkin or Lisa. View "Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Dignity Health, operating as French Hospital Medical Center, filed a complaint against orthopedic surgeon Troy I. Mounts, M.D., and his corporation to recover an advance paid under their Physician Recruitment Agreement. Mounts filed a cross-complaint alleging retaliation for his complaints about patient care quality, interference with his economic opportunities, and unlawful business practices. Dignity responded with an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the cross-complaint, which the trial court initially denied. The appellate court reversed this decision and remanded the case for further consideration.Upon remand, the trial court concluded that Mounts had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his claims. The court found that Dignity's actions were protected by the litigation privilege, the common interest privilege, and were barred by the statute of limitations. Consequently, the court granted Dignity's motion to strike the cross-complaint and ordered Mounts to pay Dignity's attorney fees and costs.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that all of Mounts' claims were based on conduct protected by the litigation privilege (Civil Code § 47, subd. (b)) and the common interest privilege (Civil Code § 47, subd. (c)). The court also found that Dignity's actions were immune under federal law (42 U.S.C. § 11137) and that some claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate court upheld the trial court's orders granting the motion to strike and awarding attorney fees to Dignity. View "Dignity Health v. Mounts" on Justia Law

Thomas Schmidt filed a lawsuit against his former attorney, Gary Dubin, and Dubin Law Offices, alleging that Dubin breached contractual and other duties in representing Schmidt in a separate lawsuit and improperly retained a $100,000 retainer. The Circuit Court of the First Circuit granted partial summary judgment in favor of Dubin, ruling that Schmidt's claims were time-barred and awarded Dubin attorneys' fees and costs as the prevailing party. Schmidt appealed the decision.The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) reviewed the case and found that the Circuit Court erred in granting summary judgment on Schmidt's breach of contract claims, as there were genuine issues of material fact regarding when the cause of action accrued. The ICA vacated the Circuit Court's judgment on these claims but affirmed the judgment in all other respects, including the award of attorneys' fees and costs to Dubin. Schmidt filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the ICA should also vacate the award of attorneys' fees and costs, which the ICA denied.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed the case and held that the ICA erred in affirming the Circuit Court's judgment for attorneys' fees and costs after vacating the summary judgment on Schmidt's breach of contract claims. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment to the extent it affirmed the award of attorneys' fees and costs and remanded the case to the Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Supreme Court emphasized that when a judgment upon which attorneys' fees and costs were based is vacated, the related fees and costs should also be vacated. View "Schmidt v. Dubin" on Justia Law

In this case, SARN SD3 LLC ("SD3") brought a breach of contract action against Czechoslovak Group A.S. ("CSG") regarding an option contract for shares in RETIA A.S. ("RETIA"). The contract stipulated that if CSG ceased to own a majority of RETIA before SD3's call option expired, CSG would pay SD3 a "Penalty Amount" based on an "Independent Valuation" of RETIA. CSG sold RETIA, triggering the Penalty Amount, but disputes arose over access to valuation information, leading SD3 to file suit.The Superior Court of Delaware granted SD3's entitlement to the Penalty Amount and calculated the Independent Valuation as the average of two valuations from Big Four accounting firms, despite CSG's objections. The court later determined that SD3's valuation was independently determined and in good faith. SD3 then filed a Rule 37 Motion for sanctions, alleging CSG withheld important valuation documents, but the court denied the motion, suggesting SD3 seek relief under Rule 60(b) for newly discovered evidence. SD3's subsequent Rule 60 Motion was also denied, as the court found the documents were not newly discovered and no exceptional circumstances warranted relief.The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's decisions. The Supreme Court held that the contract's provisions were clear and unambiguous, not requiring judicial inquiry into the valuation methodologies. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court's handling of the Rule 37 and Rule 60 motions, as SD3 had the documents in question well before the summary judgment ruling and failed to demonstrate due diligence. Additionally, the Supreme Court upheld the Superior Court's decision to convert the judgment to U.S. dollars using the exchange rate as of the valuation date, rejecting SD3's arguments for a different conversion date. View "Czechoslovak Group A.S. v. SARN SD3 LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs J.A. Masters Investments and K.G. Investments brought state-law claims of fraud and breach of contract against the defendant. The case was fully litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which accepted jurisdiction based on the premise that the parties were citizens of different states under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). However, the record only mentioned the residence of each party, not their citizenship, which is required to establish diversity jurisdiction.The district court conducted a five-day jury trial, and the jury rendered a verdict. Following the trial, the plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Upon review, the Fifth Circuit identified a potential jurisdictional issue: the pleadings did not definitively establish the citizenship of each party, only their residency. The court requested a joint letter from the parties to address whether diversity jurisdiction existed. The parties insisted that jurisdiction was proper and even stipulated to facts they believed would confirm complete diversity. However, they failed to provide citations to the record establishing citizenship.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the record did not adequately establish diversity jurisdiction. The court noted that citizenship and residence are not synonymous and that the parties had conflated the two. Given the incomplete record, the court decided to remand the case to the district court to allow the parties to supplement the record with the necessary jurisdictional facts. The court emphasized that without clear evidence of jurisdiction, any resolution would be nonbinding. The case was remanded for further proceedings to establish whether the parties are indeed citizens of different states, with the appellate panel retaining jurisdiction pending any further appeal. View "J.A. Masters Investments v. Beltramini" on Justia Law

A man sued his neighbors, claiming that an access road on their property caused flooding on his property. After settling with the neighbors and dismissing his claims with prejudice, he sued them again over continued flooding, alleging nuisance, trespass, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and breach of contract.The Superior Court of Alaska, Third Judicial District, granted summary judgment for the neighbors on the tort claims, citing res judicata, but allowed the breach of contract claim to proceed. After a bench trial, the court found the neighbors had breached the settlement agreement and awarded specific performance, consequential damages, and attorney’s fees, but denied punitive damages. The neighbors appealed the breach of contract ruling, and the man cross-appealed the dismissal of his tort claims and the denial of punitive damages.The Supreme Court of Alaska reversed the Superior Court’s ruling on the breach of contract claim, finding it was filed outside the three-year statute of limitations. The court held that the man was on inquiry notice of the breach when the driveway reconstruction was completed, as he observed defects at that time. The court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision that the tort claims were barred by res judicata, as they stemmed from the same transaction as the prior lawsuit. The court also upheld the denial of punitive damages, finding no evidence of egregious conduct by the neighbors.In summary, the Supreme Court of Alaska reversed the breach of contract ruling and associated awards, affirmed the dismissal of the tort claims under res judicata, and upheld the denial of punitive damages. View "Williams v. Strong" on Justia Law

Advanced Benefit Concepts, Inc. (ABC) filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Access Health, Inc., Preferred Care Services, Inc., and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama (collectively, Access Health). ABC alleged that Access Health failed to pay fees owed under an agreement where ABC helped Access Health secure a contract with the State of Louisiana’s Office of Group Benefits (OGB). Access Health countered that the contract was null and void because ABC did not register as a lobbyist as required by the Louisiana Executive Branch Lobbying Act.The district court ruled in favor of Access Health, declaring the contract void due to ABC’s failure to register as a lobbyist. The court granted Access Health’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing ABC’s breach of contract claim. ABC’s exceptions of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and prescription were overruled. ABC appealed the decision.The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, reversed the district court’s decision, holding that the Board of Ethics had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of the contract under the Lobbying Act. The appellate court concluded that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to declare the contract void and reversed the summary judgment.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and reversed the appellate court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the contractual dispute, including the affirmative defense of nullity based on the Lobbying Act. The court emphasized that the Executive Branch Lobbying Act does not deprive the district court of jurisdiction and that the district court can consider whether the contract is an absolute nullity under Louisiana Civil Code article 2030. The case was remanded to the appellate court to consider the exception of prescription and the merits of the summary judgment motion. View "ADVANCED BENEFIT CONCEPTS, INC. VS. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ALABAMA" on Justia Law