Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff-appellant James McKenzie appealed a trial court’s order awarding him only $28,350 of the nearly $48,000 in attorney fees he sought in this case, following the parties’ settlement of McKenzie’s claim under the automobile “lemon law” provisions of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The trial court refused to award McKenzie any of the attorney fees incurred in the wake of Ford’s initial offer because it viewed the compromise offer ultimately accepted by McKenzie as essentially identical to the offer he had initially rejected – distinguished only by his “demand that [he] be allowed to file [a fee] motion.” The court concluded McKenzie unreasonably delayed settlement for the sole purpose of ginning up his fee award. The Court of Appeal reversed. The Court found the trial court’s comparative assessment of Ford’s two settlement offers was erroneous as a matter of law. "Even Ford concedes its initial settlement offer incorporated numerous extraneous provisions – including broad releases of both Ford and nonparties, an illegal confidentiality clause characterized as 'material' to the settlement, and what amounted to an opt-out provision in Ford’s favor – all of which were excised from the offer McKenzie later accepted. These differences are significant, and thus McKenzie’s rejection of the initial offer was reasonable, requiring his counsel to continue working on the case." The Court held further that the trial court’s erroneous comparison of Ford’s initial compromise offer with the offer McKenzie later accepted fatally undermined its conclusion that the entire amount of hours billed by McKenzie’s counsel in the wake of that initial offer was unjustified. The court’s additional finding, that McKenzie’s two attorneys also engaged in instances of duplicative billing after Ford’s initial offer, did not support a complete denial of fees for that period. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the trial court with directions to reconsider the fee award. View "McKenzie v. Ford Motor Co." on Justia Law

"This is a case of egregious attorney misconduct." Because of the cumulative effect of the attorney's misconduct, the Court of Appeal felt compelled to reverse the judgment she obtained on behalf of her client, Caltrans. "While Judge Di Cesare showed the patience of Job – usually a virtue in a judge – that patience here had the effect of favoring one side over the other. He allowed [the attorney] to emphasize irrelevant and inflammatory points concerning the plaintiff's character so often that he effectively gave CalTrans an unfair advantage." View "Martinez v. Dept. of Transportation" on Justia Law

Choice Hotels sued SBQI, its managers, and investors, for breach of a franchise agreement. The defendants did not answer the complaint. The court entered a default. One defendant, Chawla, an Illinois attorney, had represented the others. Other defendants asked Chawla to find a new attorney. They claimed that they had been unaware that their signatures were on the franchise agreement and that the signatures are forgeries. Johnson agreed to try to vacate the default, negotiate a settlement, and defend against the demand for damages. Johnson filed an appearance and took some steps, but did not answer the complaint or move to vacate the default, engage in discovery concerning damages, or reply to a summary judgment motion on damages. In emails, Johnson insisted that he was trying to settle the litigation. He did not return phone calls. The court set damages at $430,286.75 and entered final judgment. A new attorney moved to set aside the judgment more than a year after its entry, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), which covers “any other reason that justifies relief” and requires “extraordinary circumstances.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The defendants must bear the consequences of their inaction. They were able to monitor the proceedings, but did not follow through. View "Choice Hotels Int'l Inc. v. Grover" on Justia Law

Moje, playing minor league hockey, lost an eye during a game, and sued Oakley, which made his visor, and the League. Instead of notifying its insurer, the League hired LoFaro. Oakley’s attorney called the League’s President, to ask why it had not answered the complaint. LoFaro claimed that an answer had been filed, but the docket did not reflect any filing. Moje moved for default. LoFaro did not respond, nor did he respond after the court entered the default and permitted Moje to prove damages. The court entered a final judgment of $800,000 against the League. After the League learned of collection efforts, it notified its insurer. A lawyer hired by the insurer unsuccessfully moved, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) to set aside the judgment within six months of its entry. Rule 60(b)(1), allows relief on account of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Abandoned clients who take reasonable steps to protect themselves can expect to have judgments reopened under Rule 60(b)(1), but the League is not in that category. Its remedy is against LoFaro. View "Moje v. Federal Hockey League LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs (a class of 1,593) alleged that Visteon failed to deliver timely notice to ex-employees, offering them an opportunity to continue health insurance at their own expense, under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). An employer has 44 days after the end of a person’s employment to provide notice and essential details, 29 U.S.C. 1166(a)(2). The court found that Visteon had provided untimely notice to 741 former employees, and that the notice averaged 376 days late for those persons. The court awarded $2,500 to each class member who had received untimely notice (a total of about $1.85 million), a sum that does not depend on how long the delay was for any given person. While the suit was pending, Visteon was reorganized in bankruptcy. The plan provides that debts of this kind will be paid 50¢ on the dollar, so each of the 741 will receive $1,250. The court also ordered Visteon to pay class counsel $302,780 as attorneys’ fees plus costs of about $11,000. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees, but otherwise dismissed plaintiffs’ challenge to the penalty as untimely, having been filed several months after the district court’s delayed entry of judgment. View "Pierce v. Visteon Corp." on Justia Law

The United States filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district judge’s policy restricting the pro hac vice admission of government attorneys. After the petition was filed, the district judge reversed his previous order denying an attorney in this case pro hac vice admission. The court concluded that the case was not moot and that the controversy remains live where it was reasonably likely that the judge will again deny the pro hac vice applications of attorneys for the United States; while the reversal of the challenged order did not render this controversy moot, it rendered a formal writ of mandamus a superfluous or ineffective remedy here; in this case, the judge acted outside his discretion by failing to provide a valid reason to deny the attorney's application for pro hac vice admission; the judge committed clear error; the first and second Bauman v. U.S. District Court factors weighed in favor of issuing mandamus when the petition was filed, and weigh in favor of offering guidance to the district court; the fact that the judge's order in this case was not an isolated occurrence weighed in favor of granting mandamus relief when the petition was filed; the district court's order raises important problems or issues of first impression and weighed in favor of mandamus relief when the petition was filed and weighs in favor of offering guidance to the district court even though a formal writ is no longer necessary; and issuing a formal writ would have been an appropriate remedy but for the judge’s voluntary cessation. Accordingly, the court denied the petition without prejudice. View "USA V. USDC-NVR" on Justia Law

The Court of Criminal Appeals held David Dow, a post-trial capital defense attorney, in contempt for violating Court of Criminal Appeals Miscellaneous Rule 11-003 and suspended him from practicing before it for one year. Dow filed this original proceeding seeking mandamus and declaratory relief in the Supreme Court, contending that the Court of Criminal Appeals exceeded its authority in imposing the sanction. The Supreme Court dismissed Dow’s petition, holding (1) the Court does not have jurisdiction under the Constitution over Dow’s petition for mandamus relief; and (2) because the Court lacked mandamus jurisdiction, it also lacked jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief. View "In re Dow" on Justia Law

Gaymar ‘s patent is directed to a patient temperature control system, including a blanket that can conductively warm or cool the patient. In 2008, Gaymar sued CSZ, asserting that CSZ’s Blanketrol device infringed claims of the patent. The PTO granted CSZ’s inter partes reexamination request and issued a first Office Action rejecting all claims of the patent as anticipated or obvious over prior art cited in CSZ’s request. The district court denied Gaymar’s motion for a preliminary injunction and granted CSZ’s motion to stay the case pending the conclusion of the reexamination. The PTO reaffirmed its rejection of all claims of the patent. Gaymar filed an express abandonment of all claims in 2010, and the PTO concluded the reexamination, cancelling all of the claims. The district court lifted the stay. CSZ unsuccessfully sought attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, alleging that Gaymar’s litigation position was frivolous and that Gaymar had engaged in litigation misconduct. Following the Supreme Court’s 2014, decision, Octane Fitness, CSZ unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration. The Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of a lack of objective baselessness, but reversed the exceptional case finding insofar as it was based on CSZ’s purported misconduct. View "Gaymar Indus., Inc. v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Prods., Inc." on Justia Law

SGI sued Yogi’s, alleging trademark infringement. Attorney Harris filed trademark applications for Yogi’s. SGI served Harris with a subpoena, for his deposition. The deposition did not take place. The court ordered Harris to be deposed at his office at noon on October 29. SGI sent Harris, who did not attend the hearing, a copy of the order by mail and facsimile on October 23. On October 29, SGI’s attorney, Park, arrived at the office. Harris was not there. The two spoke by phone. According to Park, Harris stated that he was aware of the order, but that it would take him at least an hour to arrive. Park told Harris that if he did not arrive by 1:00 p.m. it would be treated as a “no show.” The deposition did not occur. Harris faxed a letter stating his intention to comply and willingness to be deposed telephonically or by video. SGI did not respond or attempt to reschedule, but moved to hold Harris in contempt, seeking fees and expenses of $6,800. Harris filed an affidavit, explaining that during the week of October 22, he was in New York, and that he first became aware of the court order on October 29, when speaking with Park. On November 6, Harris sent Park a letter via email, facsimile, and certified mail, stating that he was available for deposition. On November 8, Harris called Park to reschedule. Park did not return the call; Harris sent another email. There was no response. On December 17, the court ordered SGA to take Harris’ deposition that same day. SGI complied. The court declared the motion for contempt and sanctions moot. SGI filed a renewed motion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed its denial. View "Sik Gaek, Inc. v. Harris" on Justia Law

ASARCO hired the law firms to assist it in carrying out its duties as a Chapter 11 debtor in possession, 11 U.S.C. 327(a). When ASARCO emerged from bankruptcy, the law firms filed fee applications requesting fees under section 330(a)(1), which permits bankruptcy courts to “award . . . reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services rendered by” professionals. The Bankruptcy Court rejected ASARCO’s objections and awarded fees for time spent defending the applications. The district court held that the firms could be awarded fees for defending their fee applications. The Fifth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed. Section330(a)(1) does not permit bankruptcy courts to award fees to section 327(a) professionals for defending fee applications. The American Rule provides the basic point of reference for attorney’s fees: Each litigant pays his own attorney’s fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides otherwise. Congress did not depart from the American Rule in section 330(a)(1) for fee-defense litigation. The phrase “reasonable compensation for services rendered” necessarily implies “loyal and disinterested service in the interest of” a client, Time spent litigating a fee application against the bankruptcy estate’s administrator cannot be fairly described as “labor performed for”—let alone “disinterested service to”—that administrator. Requiring bankruptcy attorneys to bear the costs of their fee-defense litigation under section 330(a)(1) creates no disincentive to bankruptcy practice. View "Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC" on Justia Law