Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A dispute arose over the ownership of a 2021 Mercedes-Benz G63. Phoenix Motor Company (PMC), operating as Mercedes-Benz of Scottsdale, purchased the vehicle through a wholesaler, but the intermediary, Fredrick Aljundi, diverted the car to another dealership instead of delivering it to PMC. Subsequently, Zakia J. Rajabian and Dulceria La Bonita Wholesale (collectively, Dulceria) acquired the car from the second dealership and took steps to conceal its location. PMC, with assistance from Mercedes-Benz USA, located the car using tracking technology.Litigation began in the Maricopa County Superior Court, where PMC sued Dulceria and others for breach of contract and related claims, and Dulceria counterclaimed. The state court initially granted PMC possession of the car and, after further proceedings, found PMC to be the rightful owner. While the state case was ongoing, Dulceria filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, asserting claims including invasion of privacy and violations of federal and state statutes. PMC moved to dismiss or stay the federal case under the Colorado River doctrine, which allows federal courts to stay proceedings in favor of parallel state litigation. The district court granted a stay in November 2023 and formalized it in a minute order in December 2023. Dulceria later moved to lift the stay, but the district court denied the motion in April 2024.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the December 2023 minute order constituted a final, appealable order, starting the 30-day appeal period. Because Dulceria did not appeal the initial stay within that period, the court dismissed that portion of the appeal as untimely. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to lift the stay, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in maintaining the stay under the Colorado River doctrine, as there were no material changes in law or fact to warrant lifting it. View "RAJABIAN V. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC" on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs, including a medical practice, individual physicians, a medical society, and two patients, brought various claims against a health insurer, alleging that the insurer interfered with doctor-patient relationships, denied or delayed coverage for medical services, and caused significant harm to patients. The claims included tortious interference with contractual rights, unfair competition, RICO violations, and emotional distress, with specific factual allegations that the insurer’s actions led to worsened medical outcomes for the patients involved.The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit reviewed the insurer’s motion to compel arbitration based on arbitration clauses in provider agreements and member handbooks. Instead of determining whether the claims were subject to arbitration, the circuit court focused on the alleged unconscionability of the contracts as a whole, finding them to be contracts of adhesion and unconscionable, and denied the motion to compel arbitration. The court also denied summary judgment as to one patient’s claims and did not stay the medical society’s claims pending arbitration.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi reviewed the case and held that the circuit court erred by not following the required analytical framework for arbitrability. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court’s order in part, holding that claims arising under the Participating Physician Agreement must be referred to arbitration because the agreement delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Claims under the Medicare and QUEST Agreements were also subject to arbitration, as the arbitration clauses were not shown to be substantively unconscionable. However, the Court held that the claims of one patient and the physician as a patient were not subject to mandatory arbitration, and another patient’s claims were not subject to a grievance and appeals clause. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Frederick A. Nitta, M.D., Inc. v. Hawaii Medical Service Association." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit against eleven defendants, alleging a scheme involving breach of employment agreements, misappropriation of funds, embezzlement, and fraud. The suit was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi. Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, citing diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs sought to remand the case to state court, relying on a provision in three defendants’ contracts that specified venue in Harrison County, Mississippi, and included language about consent to personal jurisdiction and venue solely within those forums, along with a waiver of objections to those forums.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi interpreted the contractual provision as a waiver of the defendants’ right to remove the case to federal court. The district court reasoned that the provision gave the first-filing party the sole right to choose the court, and that by waiving objections to venue and personal jurisdiction, the defendants had also waived their removal rights. Consequently, the district court remanded the case to state court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s interpretation of the contractual waiver de novo, applying Mississippi law. The Fifth Circuit held that the contract provision did not constitute a clear and unequivocal waiver of the defendants’ right to remove the case to federal court. The court found that the language regarding venue and jurisdiction could reasonably refer to geographic location and did not explicitly or implicitly waive removal rights, especially since the contract contemplated litigation in both state and federal courts in Harrison County. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s remand order. View "Gulf Coast Pharmaceuticals Plus, L.L.C. v. RFT Consulting" on Justia Law

The founder and former CEO of a national pizza company brought suit against a public relations firm that had previously provided services to the company. The dispute arose after the plaintiff alleged that the firm leaked confidential and damaging information about him to the press, in violation of a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) that included an arbitration clause. The NDA was executed after the company requested the firm sign it, anticipating close work with the plaintiff during a period of reputational crisis. The relationship between the parties deteriorated following a conference call in which the plaintiff made controversial remarks, which were later reported in the media, leading to his resignation from the company’s board.The case was initially filed in state court and then removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Over several years, the litigation involved multiple amended complaints, extensive discovery, and dispositive motions. The defendant did not move to compel arbitration until after the district court denied summary judgment on the NDA claim. The district court held a bench trial and found that the NDA was enforceable and contained a binding arbitration provision. However, the court concluded that the defendant had defaulted on its right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case for years before seeking arbitration, and thus denied the motion to compel arbitration.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s contract formation ruling but had jurisdiction to review the default determination. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the defendant defaulted on its arbitration rights by seeking a merits resolution in court before moving to compel arbitration. The court dismissed the appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction, otherwise affirmed the district court’s judgment, and denied the plaintiff’s request for sanctions. View "Schnatter v. 247 Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Three individuals, including the appellant, formed a limited liability company (LLC) to design and sell firearms products, later adding two more members to a second LLC. The first LLC did not have a formal operating agreement, while the second adopted one in early 2019, setting a low company valuation. The appellant’s behavior became erratic and disruptive, leading to accusations against a key business partner and other members, which damaged business relationships and led to the loss of significant contracts. The remaining members of both LLCs unanimously voted to dissociate the appellant, citing his conduct as making it unlawful to continue business with him. The appellant disputed the validity of the operating agreement in the second LLC and challenged the valuation of his interests in both companies, also alleging wrongful dissociation, defamation, and conversion of property.The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. The court found the appellant was properly dissociated from the first LLC under Montana’s Limited Liability Company Act due to the unanimous vote and the unlawfulness of continuing business with him. It also held that the second LLC’s operating agreement was valid and permitted dissociation by unanimous vote. The court valued the appellant’s interests according to the operating agreement for the second LLC and based on company assets for the first LLC. The court denied the appellant’s motion to extend expert disclosure deadlines and partially denied his motion to compel discovery. It also granted summary judgment to the defendants on the conversion claim, finding no evidence of unauthorized control over the appellant’s property.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the lower court’s rulings on dissociation and valuation regarding the second LLC, as well as the summary judgment on the conversion claim. However, it reversed the valuation of the appellant’s interest in the first LLC, holding that the district court erred by failing to consider the company’s “going concern” value as required by statute. The case was remanded for further proceedings on that issue. View "Herbert v. Shield Arms" on Justia Law

Steven Meads and Penny Lipking-Meads operated a business as a sole proprietorship before partnering with Jed Driggers in 2010 to expand the business. The parties formed Afterburner, LLC, with the Meadses and Driggers as members, and Driggers as manager. The Meadses contributed assets and goodwill, while Driggers provided capital and expertise. The LLC’s operating agreement included a provision stating that the LLC could only be dissolved by a vote of the members or bankruptcy/insolvency, and that members agreed not to take any other voluntary action to dissolve the LLC, effectively waiving the right to seek judicial dissolution under certain statutory circumstances.A decade later, the Meadses alleged Driggers had improperly diverted business funds and filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Siskiyou County seeking, among other relief, judicial dissolution of the LLC. Driggers and the LLC filed a cross-complaint for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, arguing that the Meadses violated the operating agreement’s waiver provision by seeking dissolution. The Meadses responded with a motion to strike the cross-complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, contending that the waiver provision was unenforceable as contrary to law and public policy. The Superior Court granted the anti-SLAPP motion, finding the cross-complaint arose from protected activity and that Driggers could not show a probability of prevailing.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that, under the Beverly-Killea Limited Liability Company Act, an LLC operating agreement may not waive or vary a member’s statutory right to seek judicial dissolution in the circumstances specified by law. The court concluded that the waiver provision was void and unenforceable, and thus Driggers could not prevail on his cross-complaint. The order striking the cross-complaint was affirmed. View "Meads v. Driggers" on Justia Law

A manufacturer of fasteners and related parts entered into a long-term supply agreement with a home appliance company, which later spun off its outdoor products division into a separate entity. The agreement, intended to make the manufacturer the exclusive supplier for a broad range of parts, quickly became the subject of disputes over its scope and the parties’ obligations. The parties attempted to resolve their disagreements through a settlement memorandum and a consent order, but further conflicts arose regarding price increases, performance, and payment for inventory.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia was first asked to interpret the scope of the parties’ agreements. It found the original contract too indefinite to enforce in its entirety but held that subsequent agreements and the parties’ course of performance clarified which parts were covered. The district court also sanctioned the manufacturer for discovery violations, specifically for failing to produce product-level cost data, and struck its lost profits claim. The court denied the manufacturer’s motion for sanctions against the defendants for alleged spoliation, finding the motion untimely and the missing evidence irrelevant. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the manufacturer’s price increase claim, finding insufficient evidence to support the requested increases, and denied the manufacturer’s motion to amend its complaint to add a claim for prejudgment interest due to undue delay.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed each of the manufacturer’s challenges. The court held that the district court properly interpreted the scope of the agreements, did not abuse its discretion in imposing or denying discovery sanctions, correctly granted summary judgment on the price increase claim, and appropriately excluded certain evidence at trial. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed all orders and the final judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Whitesell Corporation v. Husqvarna Outdoor Products, Inc." on Justia Law

In May 2022, Garry Douglas Seaman shot and killed James Preston Freeman and seriously wounded Heidi Gabert, following the end of his romantic relationship with Gabert, with whom he shares a minor child. Seaman was criminally charged, and Gabert and Dawn Freeman, James’s spouse, filed a civil suit for damages. To prevent Seaman from transferring or selling assets during the litigation, Gabert and Freeman successfully sought a receivership over all of Seaman’s property. After negotiations, the parties reached a settlement memorialized in a memorandum of understanding (MOU), which included $10 million judgments for Gabert and Freeman, liquidation of Seaman’s assets, and a homestead exemption for Seaman.The Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, approved the creation of a designated settlement fund (DSF) to facilitate asset liquidation. Initially, the court’s DSF Order required the Liquidation Receiver to reserve funds from asset sales to pay Seaman’s capital gains taxes, interpreting the MOU’s tax payment provision as unambiguous. Gabert and Freeman moved to amend this order under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), arguing the court erred in its interpretation and that the parties did not intend to reserve funds for Seaman’s capital gains taxes. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court agreed, finding the MOU ambiguous and, based on extrinsic evidence, concluded the parties did not intend to reserve such funds. The court amended its order, striking the provision requiring reservation for capital gains taxes.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court abused its discretion in amending the DSF Order. The Supreme Court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion, correctly found the MOU ambiguous, and its factual finding regarding the parties’ intent was not clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s amended order. View "Gabert v. Seaman" on Justia Law

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded $16 billion in grants to five nonprofit organizations to support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as part of a larger $27 billion congressional appropriation under the Inflation Reduction Act. The grants were structured through agreements between the nonprofits and EPA, with Citibank acting as a financial agent to hold and disburse the funds. After concerns arose regarding conflicts of interest, lack of oversight, and last-minute amendments to the grant agreements, EPA terminated the grants in early 2025. Citibank, following an FBI recommendation, froze the accounts associated with the grants. The nonprofits sued, seeking to prevent the termination and to restore access to the funds.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction, ordering EPA and Citibank to continue funding the grants. The district court found it had jurisdiction, concluding the plaintiffs’ claims were not essentially contractual and thus did not need to be brought in the Court of Federal Claims. The court determined the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their constitutional, regulatory, and arbitrary and capricious claims, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored the injunction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs’ regulatory and arbitrary and capricious claims were essentially contractual, meaning jurisdiction lay exclusively in the Court of Federal Claims, not the district court. The court also held that the constitutional claim was meritless. The equities and public interest, the appellate court concluded, favored the government’s need for oversight and management of public funds. Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Climate United Fund v. Citibank, N.A." on Justia Law

A family leased a home within military housing at the Naval Amphibious Base Coronado in California. Shortly after moving in, they experienced persistent water intrusion and mold contamination, which they alleged damaged their property and affected their health. The family reported these issues to the property manager and the public-private entity responsible for the housing, but claimed that remediation efforts were inadequate and that their concerns were dismissed. After further testing confirmed hazardous mold, the family vacated the property and brought state law claims, including negligence and breach of contract, against the property manager, the public-private housing entity, and a mold remediation company.The defendants removed the case from California state court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, asserting federal enclave, federal officer, and federal agency jurisdiction. The district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on derivative sovereign immunity and, after further proceedings, found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction on all asserted grounds. Specifically, the court determined there was no evidence that the United States had accepted exclusive jurisdiction over the property, that the defendants failed to show a causal nexus between their actions and federal direction, and that the public-private entity was not a federal agency. The district court remanded the case to state court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the remand order under an exception allowing appellate review when federal officer removal is asserted. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court correctly found no federal enclave jurisdiction because there was no evidence of federal acceptance of exclusive jurisdiction over the property. The court also held that the defendants did not meet the requirements for federal officer or agency jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s remand to state court. View "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC" on Justia Law