Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A same-sex married couple, one a U.S. citizen residing in California and the other a Saudi citizen, spent part of each year living together in Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality is punishable by death. In 2021, after U.S. travel restrictions eased, they booked tickets with a German airline to fly from Saudi Arabia to San Francisco. The airline, which operates extensively in California, required them to confirm their marital status for entry into the U.S. During check-in in Riyadh, a senior airline employee publicly disclosed and questioned their relationship, and copies of their marriage certificate and passports were sent electronically to airline headquarters despite their concerns about Saudi government surveillance. After the trip, the Saudi government updated one plaintiff’s official status to “married,” and he feared returning to Saudi Arabia due to potential severe penalties. The couple alleged that the airline’s actions led to significant personal, financial, and health consequences.The couple filed suit in California state court against the airline and its U.S. subsidiary, alleging breach of contract and several torts. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting diversity and federal question jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit initially remanded for clarification of the subsidiary’s citizenship, after which the district court allowed amendment of the removal notice to reflect the correct citizenship.Upon renewed review, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court had both specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants and subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity. The court found that the airline purposefully availed itself of California’s market, the claims arose from the airline’s California-related activities, and exercising jurisdiction was reasonable. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "DOE V. DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT" on Justia Law

The case centers on a long-standing dispute involving three churches over ownership and sale of real property in Los Angeles. Attorney Steven C. Kim represented one of the churches, Central Korean Evangelical Church, which granted him a deed of trust on the property to secure payment of attorney fees. Central Korean had contracted to sell the property to New Life Oasis Church but later reneged, leading to litigation. The trial court ordered Central Korean to honor the sale and expunged Kim’s deed of trust, which was obstructing the transaction. Kim’s client appealed, but the appeal was dismissed for lack of standing, and Kim did not pursue his own appeal. The judgment became final in 2018.Following the final judgment, Kim filed a new lawsuit against New Life Oasis Church and Bank of Hope, seeking a declaration that his deed of trust was still valid and challenging the prior expungement order. New Life and Bank of Hope moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that issue preclusion barred Kim from relitigating the validity of his lien. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County agreed and entered judgment against Kim. Additionally, New Life filed a cross-complaint alleging that Kim’s recording of a lis pendens constituted slander of title and abuse of process. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of New Life, awarding damages and not addressing Kim’s defense based on the litigation privilege.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. It affirmed the trial court’s application of issue preclusion, holding that Kim could not relitigate the validity of his deed of trust. However, it reversed the judgment on the cross-complaint, holding that the litigation privilege protected Kim’s recording of the lis pendens from claims of slander of title and abuse of process. The case was remanded for entry of judgment consistent with these holdings. View "Kim v. New Life Oasis Church" on Justia Law

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

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