Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

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

A homebuyer entered into an agreement to purchase a property in Titusville, Pennsylvania, and, before completing the purchase, orally contracted with a home inspector to perform an inspection. The inspector delivered a report that did not disclose any structural or foundational issues. Relying on this report, the buyer purchased the property. The following winter, a burst pipe led to the discovery of significant defects, including the absence of a proper foundation and improper ductwork, which had not been disclosed in the inspection report. The buyer filed suit against the inspector more than two years after the report was delivered, alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Home Inspection Law, breach of contract, and violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.The Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County overruled most of the inspector’s preliminary objections and denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding ambiguity in the statute governing the time to bring actions arising from home inspection reports. The trial court reasoned that the statute could be interpreted as either a statute of limitations or a statute of repose and declined to grant judgment for the inspector. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, holding that the statute in question was a statute of repose, not a statute of limitations, and that all of the buyer’s claims were time-barred because they were filed more than one year after the inspection report was delivered.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether the relevant statutory provision, 68 Pa.C.S. § 7512, is a statute of repose or a statute of limitations. The Court held that the statute is a statute of repose, barring any action to recover damages arising from a home inspection report if not commenced within one year of the report’s delivery, regardless of when the claim accrues. The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. View "Gidor v. Mangus" on Justia Law

Carol Rose, a prominent figure in the American Quarter Horse industry, entered into a series of agreements with Lori and Philip Aaron in 2013. The Aarons agreed to purchase a group of Rose’s horses at an auction, lease her Gainesville Ranch with an option to buy, and employ her as a consultant. The relationship quickly soured after the auction, with both sides accusing each other of breaches. Rose locked the Aarons out of the ranch and asserted a stable keeper’s lien for charges exceeding those related to the care of the Aarons’ horses. The Aarons paid the demanded sum and removed their horses. Litigation ensued, including claims by Jay McLaughlin, Rose’s former trainer, for damages related to the value of two fillies.The bankruptcy filings by Rose and her company led to the removal of the ongoing state-court litigation to the United States Bankruptcy Court. After trial, the bankruptcy court ruled in favor of the Aarons on their breach of contract and Texas Theft Liability Act (TTLA) claims, awarding damages and attorneys’ fees, and in favor of McLaughlin on his claim. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas reversed the bankruptcy court’s rulings on the Aarons’ claims and McLaughlin’s claim, vacating the damages and fee awards.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s reversal of the damages award for the Aarons’ breach of contract claim, holding that the Aarons failed to prove damages under any recognized Texas law measure. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment on the TTLA claim, holding that Rose’s threat to retain the Aarons’ horses for more than the lawful amount could constitute coercion under the TTLA, and remanded for further fact finding on intent and causation. The court also reversed and remanded the judgment regarding McLaughlin’s claim, finding his damages testimony legally insufficient. The court left the issue of attorneys’ fees for further proceedings. View "Rose v. Equis Equine" on Justia Law

The case involved two related companies and three individuals who operated a business targeting immigrants detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and eligible for release on immigration bonds. The companies marketed their services as an affordable way to secure release, but in reality, they charged high fees for services that were often misrepresented or not provided. The agreements were complex, mostly in English, and required significant upfront and recurring payments. Most consumers did not understand the terms and relied on the companies’ oral representations, which were deceptive. The business was not licensed as a bail bond agent or surety, and the defendants’ practices violated federal and state consumer protection laws.After the plaintiffs—the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia—filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, the defendants repeatedly failed to comply with discovery obligations and court orders. They did not produce required documents, ignored deadlines, and failed to appear at hearings. The district court, after multiple warnings and opportunities to comply, imposed default judgment as a sanction for this misconduct. The court also excluded the defendants’ late-disclosed witnesses and exhibits from the remedies hearing, finding the nondisclosures unjustified and prejudicial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The Fourth Circuit held that the default judgment was an appropriate sanction for the defendants’ repeated and willful noncompliance. The exclusion of evidence and witnesses was also upheld, as was the issuance of a permanent injunction and the calculation of monetary relief, including restitution and civil penalties totaling approximately $366.5 million. The court found no abuse of discretion or legal error in the district court’s rulings and affirmed the final judgment in all respects. View "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Nexus Services, Inc." on Justia Law

A fuel distribution company sought to acquire a competitor in Western Alaska, prompting the State to sue for anticompetitive conduct under Alaska’s consumer protection laws. To resolve the dispute, the State and the company negotiated a consent decree requiring the company to divest a portion of its fuel storage capacity in Bethel to another distributor, Delta Western, before completing the acquisition. The consent decree specified that it would expire in 30 years or could be dissolved by court order for good cause. Delta Western was not a party to the consent decree, but entered into a separate fuel storage contract with the acquiring company as required by the decree. The contract’s term extended beyond the initial five years at Delta Western’s option.Years later, the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Second Judicial District, Nome, dissolved the consent decree at the acquiring company’s request. The company then notified Delta Western that it considered the fuel storage contract terminated as a result. Delta Western filed a breach of contract action in Anchorage Superior Court, seeking to enforce the contract and arguing that its terms were independent of the consent decree. The contract case was transferred to Nome Superior Court, which issued a preliminary ruling that the contract remained valid despite the dissolution of the consent decree. The court also vacated its initial order dissolving the consent decree to allow Delta Western to intervene and present its position.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed whether dissolution of the consent decree automatically terminated the fuel storage contract and whether the superior court abused its discretion by permitting Delta Western to intervene. The court held that dissolution of the consent decree did not automatically void the contract between the parties, and that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Delta Western to intervene. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decisions and lifted the stay on the contract case. View "Crowley Marine Services, Inc. v. State of Alaska" on Justia Law

Noah Gilbert purchased a motor vehicle insurance policy from Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company, initially declining underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage but later adding a UIM endorsement with $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident limits. The policy included an offset provision, reducing any UIM payout by amounts received from another party’s insurance. Gilbert paid premiums for this coverage but never filed a UIM claim or experienced an accident triggering such coverage. He later filed a putative class action, alleging that Progressive’s UIM coverage was illusory under Idaho law and asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, fraud, and constructive fraud.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court raised the issue of standing and ultimately held that Gilbert lacked standing because he had not filed a claim or been denied coverage, and thus had not suffered an injury-in-fact. Alternatively, the court found that Gilbert’s claims failed on the merits: there was no breach of contract or bad faith without a denied claim, no damages to support fraud or constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment was unavailable due to the existence of a valid contract. The court granted summary judgment for Progressive and denied Gilbert’s motion for class certification as moot.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho held that Gilbert did have standing, as payment of premiums for allegedly illusory coverage constituted a concrete injury. However, the Court affirmed the district court’s judgment, finding that Gilbert’s claims failed on the merits because he never filed a claim, was never denied coverage, and did not incur damages. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, as an enforceable contract provided an adequate legal remedy. The judgment in favor of Progressive was affirmed. View "Gilbert v. Progressive Northwestern Insurance Co." on Justia Law

A dispute arose after Howard Misle, acting as lender, provided funds to Abram, LLC, under a promissory note to support the company’s real estate ventures. The note, initially executed in 2004 and later amended, allowed advances up to $5 million at 3% interest. In 2007, after selling a property known as Park Place, Howard was paid sums from the sale proceeds, including a payoff for the note and reimbursement for advances. Later, Howard continued to make advances to Abram for new properties in Pennsylvania. In 2020, Howard demanded repayment on the note, and when Abram did not pay, he filed suit. Abram responded by asserting a defense of recoupment, claiming Howard had been overpaid in 2007, and also filed counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent concealment.The District Court for Lancaster County granted summary judgment for Howard on the recoupment defense, finding the 2007 payment was a separate transaction from the advances Howard sought to recover. After a bench trial, the court also found that the statute of limitations barred Abram’s counterclaims, concluding that Abram’s agents had knowledge of the relevant facts and that the discovery rule did not toll the limitations period. The court adopted Howard’s calculation of interest on the note without an evidentiary hearing, overruling Abram’s objections.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. It held that Abram’s recoupment defense regarding the alleged 2007 overpayment should not have been dismissed on summary judgment, as it arose from the same transaction as Howard’s claim on the note. However, the court affirmed summary judgment for Howard on recoupment related to a personal loan to a third party. The court also found that the statute of limitations was tolled for Abram’s breach of fiduciary duty counterclaim but affirmed the dismissal of the fraudulent concealment claim. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings, including a determination of whether interest should be calculated as simple or compound. View "Konecne v. Abram, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, Christopher C. Brown, through his company Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment (TME), owned a Memphis music studio and insured both the studio and its equipment with Hanover American Insurance Company. John Falls, a musician, leased Studio B and its equipment from Brown and also obtained insurance from Hanover for the equipment and lost business income. In 2015, the studio was damaged by arson, and both Brown and Falls submitted insurance claims. Hanover discovered Brown had forged receipts for equipment purchases and sued to recover advance payments and for a declaratory judgment of no further liability. Brown, Falls, and another lessee counter-sued for breach of contract. After a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Falls was awarded $2.5 million for equipment loss and $250,000 for business income, while Brown was found to have committed insurance fraud.Hanover moved to set aside the verdict under Rule 50(b), which the district court granted. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding Hanover had forfeited its Rule 50(b) motion by failing to make a Rule 50(a) motion as to Falls, and ordered reinstatement of the jury verdict. Subsequent proceedings included a federal interpleader action and a parallel state court action between Falls and TME. The district court enjoined the state action, but the Sixth Circuit reversed the injunction.In the present appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s allocation of the insurance payout, holding that Hanover was precluded by res judicata from challenging Falls’s recovery on grounds that could have been raised earlier. The court found the district court’s error in interpreting the wrong lease was harmless and upheld the allocation of funds based on the value of Falls’s leasehold interest. The court also held that Tennessee public policy barred Brown from recovering his allocated share due to his insurance fraud. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Hanover American Insurance Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment" on Justia Law

A business operating a strip club featuring nude dancing and alcohol sales entered into a settlement agreement with DeKalb County, Georgia, in 2001, which was later amended in 2007. The amended agreement granted the club non-conforming status, allowing it to continue its business model for fifteen years, with the possibility of renewal, and required annual licensing fees. In 2013, the City of Chamblee annexed the area containing the club and subsequently adopted ordinances restricting adult entertainment establishments, including bans on alcohol sales, stricter food sales requirements for alcohol licenses, and earlier closing times. The City initially issued alcohol licenses to the club but later denied renewal, citing failure to meet new requirements and the club’s status as an adult establishment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed some of the club’s claims for lack of standing and granted summary judgment to the City on the remaining claims. The district court found that the club lacked standing to challenge certain ordinances as it was not an alcohol licensee, and that the City’s ordinances regulating adult entertainment and alcohol sales were constitutional under the secondary-effects doctrine, applying intermediate scrutiny. The court also determined there was no valid contract between the club and the City, rejecting the Contract Clause claims, and found no equal protection violation, as the club failed to identify a similarly situated comparator.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Eleventh Circuit held that the club lacked standing for equitable relief due to its permanent closure, but had standing for damages for a limited period. The court upheld the application of intermediate scrutiny to the ordinances, found no impairment of contract, and agreed that the club failed to establish an equal protection violation. The district court’s judgment in favor of the City was affirmed. View "WBY, Inc. v. City of Chamblee, Georgia" on Justia Law