Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The plaintiffs purchased undeveloped property in Westerly, Rhode Island, in 1999. In 2007, they applied to the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) for permission to install an onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), a prerequisite for building a residence on their land. DEM denied their application because the groundwater table on the property was only five inches below the surface, while regulations required a minimum of twelve inches. The plaintiffs did not pursue an administrative appeal at that time.In 2020, more than a decade after the denial, the plaintiffs filed suit in Washington County Superior Court, seeking declaratory relief and compensation for an alleged regulatory taking under state and federal law. They also asserted that the regulation violated their rights to equal protection and due process. The state moved to dismiss the action, contending it was time-barred, the plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and they lacked standing. The Superior Court agreed, holding that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations, that administrative remedies had not been exhausted, and that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court dismissed the case with prejudice.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed whether the lower court’s dismissal was proper. The Court held that the three-year statute of limitations applied to all claims, and the continuing violation doctrine did not toll the limitations period because DEM’s denial of the permit was a discrete act, not a continuing violation. The Court further found the plaintiffs lacked standing for prospective relief because they did not allege an actual or imminent injury, as any future application might not necessarily be denied. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. View "Majeika v. State of Rhode Island" on Justia Law

Two individuals entered into a loan agreement and mortgage with a bank in Puerto Rico, using their home as collateral. After a decade, they faced financial difficulties and stopped making payments. The bank denied a request to modify the loan but proposed a short sale. The bank then initiated foreclosure proceedings in Puerto Rico’s Court of First Instance, resulting in a judgment against the borrowers. Multiple short sale offers were rejected until one was conditionally accepted, but the sale did not close in time and the home was foreclosed. Subsequently, the bank garnished funds from the borrowers, who then filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico confirmed the borrowers’ Chapter 13 plan, noting their intent to pursue claims against the bank. The borrowers filed an adversary proceeding seeking damages and other relief. The bank moved to dismiss the adversary complaint, but the bankruptcy court denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed. The borrowers later filed a similar complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and moved to withdraw the adversary proceeding to the district court. The district court denied the withdrawal as untimely and dismissed the separate federal case. After the borrowers completed their bankruptcy plan and received a discharge, the bankruptcy court dismissed the adversary proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the bankruptcy court erred in finding it automatically lost jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding post-discharge. The appellate court vacated and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower courts to reassess jurisdiction and properly address the borrowers’ motion for withdrawal and their jury trial request. View "Guallini-Indij v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

Four brothers who had previously formed a diamond partnership later entered into an oral agreement in 1995 with a fifth brother to create a separate real estate partnership. The agreement was never reduced to writing, consistent with family custom. Over several years, the brothers jointly acquired and managed a large portfolio of California real estate. Tensions arose after the original real estate owner repaid a loan that was a condition for his partnership interest. One brother, who controlled the partnership’s entities, began excluding the others and denied the existence of any partnership, asserting sole ownership over the assets.The litigation began in 2003 when the excluded brother sued his siblings and related entities for his partnership share and damages. Two other brothers, who initially disclaimed the partnership under alleged economic coercion, later filed cross-complaints for their shares in both the diamond and real estate partnerships. The case saw multiple prior appeals and writ proceedings. After the trial court initially granted summary adjudication against the main plaintiff on most claims, the California Court of Appeal reversed, allowing contract, fiduciary duty, and fraud claims to proceed. Further cross-complaints were filed by the brothers, which survived demurrer on statute of limitations grounds.In 2024, after a lengthy jury trial, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County entered judgment in favor of the three plaintiff brothers, awarding declaratory relief, partnership shares, compensatory and punitive damages, and prejudgment interest totaling about $6.85 billion against the controlling brother and the partnership entities. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, rejected most challenges to the trial court’s evidentiary rulings and instructions, but held the court erred in admitting an undisclosed expert opinion concerning lost investment profits. The appellate court conditionally affirmed the judgment, ordering a reduction of the economic damages awards relating to the real estate partnership by amounts attributable to this opinion, unless the plaintiffs opt for a new trial on those damages and related punitive damages. The judgments were otherwise affirmed. View "Jogani v. Jogani" on Justia Law

Danielle Nygaard purchased a home in Fargo, North Dakota, with United Savings Credit Union as the mortgagee. Scott Volker recorded a quitclaim deed purporting to transfer the property from Nygaard to himself and initiated eviction proceedings against Nygaard. Volker claimed this action was based on a loan agreement in which he personally guaranteed a loan from Joseph Svobodny to Nygaard, and that Nygaard failed to repay the loan. Nygaard denied executing the quitclaim deed or the loan agreement, asserting the $40,000 was a gift. She brought a quiet title action against Volker, later amending her complaint to include Svobodny and the Credit Union, and alleged fraud, slander of title, and abuse of process.The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, presided by Judge Reid A. Brady, managed the case. Nygaard sought discovery of Volker’s electronic devices and accounts, suspecting document alteration. Volker resisted discovery and his attorney withdrew, citing ethical concerns after Volker instructed him not to disclose material subject to the court order. The court issued orders compelling discovery and warned of sanctions for noncompliance. Volker repeatedly failed to comply, leading the court to strike his and Svobodny’s pleadings. Nygaard moved for default judgment and was awarded title to the property, damages, and substantial attorney’s fees. The court also imposed Rule 11 sanctions on Volker for presenting pleadings lacking evidentiary support.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota, Volker challenged the findings of forgery, the sanctions, and the default judgment. The Supreme Court held that Volker failed to timely respond or preserve his arguments regarding sanctions and forgery. Importantly, Volker did not move to vacate the default judgment under Rule 60(b), limiting appellate review to irregularities on the face of the judgment, none of which were found. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and all associated orders. View "Nygaard v. Volker" on Justia Law

Two homeowners brought suit against their homeowners' association and its board members, claiming improper use of dues, unlawful sale of a storage unit, failure to hold proper meetings, and allowance of illegal activities on the premises. The plaintiffs communicated concerns to the board and demanded relevant documents, but ultimately filed a lawsuit soon after sending a demand that the board bring suit against certain directors. They later amended the petition to add an additional defendant. The board had responded to some allegations, including rescinding the contested sale and scheduling meetings, but plaintiffs argued the board failed to investigate or act in good faith.The Oklahoma County District Court granted summary judgment to all defendants. The court found that plaintiffs’ affidavits lacked evidentiary support and that the brief interval between the plaintiffs’ pre-suit demand and the filing of the lawsuit did not allow the board enough time to investigate and make a good faith decision. The district court also determined that plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of proving the board breached fiduciary duties and did not make a pre-suit demand regarding one defendant. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the demand requirement was not met and that the business judgment rule protected the board's decisions.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma granted certiorari and reviewed the case de novo. The Court vacated the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals but affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court held that plaintiffs’ pre-suit demand did not provide a reasonable time for the board to investigate, as required for a shareholder derivative claim. The Court also found plaintiffs failed to rebut the business judgment rule and did not provide material facts warranting trial. Thus, summary judgment for defendants was affirmed. View "HOWARD v. THE BARRINGTON HOMEOWNERS" on Justia Law

The dispute stems from a series of lawsuits initiated by a borrower after a nonjudicial foreclosure was attempted on a Maui property he purchased in 2003. Following his default on the mortgage in 2008, the property was sold in a nonjudicial foreclosure in 2010 and title transferred to a bank. The bank, through its attorneys, sought to evict the borrower and later filed a judicial foreclosure counterclaim after the borrower challenged the foreclosure's validity. The borrower remained in possession of the property throughout, and subsequent litigation centered on the conduct of both the lender and its attorneys.After an initial summary judgment against the borrower in his wrongful foreclosure suit, the Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the parties settled most claims except those against certain attorneys. Separately, the borrower filed new claims against the bank’s law firm and its attorneys, alleging fraud, unfair and deceptive acts, wrongful foreclosure, and other torts related to their legal filings and conduct during the foreclosure process. The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the attorneys and declared the borrower a vexatious litigant due to a pattern of abusive litigation.On appeal, the ICA affirmed most of the circuit court’s rulings but reinstated the borrower’s claim alleging fraud on the court. The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i held that the ICA erred by reinstating this claim, reasoning that even if the borrower’s allegations were true, they did not meet the high threshold required for an independent action for fraud on the court. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of all claims against the attorneys and the vexatious litigant order, and vacated the ICA’s ruling to the extent it had revived the fraud on the court claim. View "Greenspon v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company" on Justia Law

A property owner sought judicial review of a city’s decision under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) after the city canceled her land use application for inactivity. The owner, having taken over the application from the prior owner, received multiple requests from the city for additional information and corrections over two years but failed to satisfy them. After being granted several extensions, the city sent a written decision canceling the application via e-mail to the owner and her attorney.The owner filed a LUPA petition in King County Superior Court and attempted service on the city within the statutory 21-day period, but the first attempt was made on a city office assistant who was not statutorily authorized to receive service. A subsequent attempt, this time on the city manager (an authorized person), occurred after the 21-day deadline. The superior court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction due to improper and untimely service, and the owner appealed. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the first service attempt sufficed and that the three-day tolling provision for mailed decisions applied to decisions sent by e-mail, making the second attempt timely.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case. It held that personal service under RCW 4.28.080(2) must be made on individuals specifically designated by statute, such as the mayor, city manager, or city clerk, or their designated agents. Service on a non-designated city employee is insufficient. The court further held that LUPA’s three-day tolling provision applies only to decisions sent by postal mail, not by e-mail. Thus, the 21-day period began when the city’s e-mail provided notice of the decision’s public availability. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings. View "Chandrruangphen v. City Of Sammamish" on Justia Law

A group of residents and an association challenged actions taken by the Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District No. 1 (CID) in Boise, Idaho. The dispute arose after the CID’s board adopted resolutions in 2021 authorizing payments to a developer for infrastructure projects—such as roadways, sidewalks, and stormwater facilities—and issued a general obligation bond to finance those payments. The residents objected to the projects, arguing they primarily benefited the developer, imposed higher property taxes on homeowners, and allegedly violated the Idaho Community Infrastructure District Act (CID Act) as well as state and federal constitutional provisions. Previously, the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District reviewed the matter after the residents filed a petition challenging the board’s decisions. The district court ruled in favor of the CID and the developer, concluding most of the residents’ claims were either time-barred under the CID Act’s statute of limitations or had been waived because they were not preserved before the CID board. The court also found that the remaining claims failed on their merits, holding that the challenged projects qualified as “community infrastructure,” the stormwater facilities satisfied ownership requirements, and the CID was not the alter ego of the City of Boise. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court clarified that, given the lack of formal administrative proceedings under the CID Act, the preservation doctrine did not apply to bar the residents’ arguments. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court held that any challenge to the CID’s original formation and the 2010 bond election was time-barred. The court further held that the roadways and stormwater facilities qualified as community infrastructure, the CID’s actions did not violate constitutional requirements regarding taxation or lending of credit, and the CID was not the alter ego of the city. The Supreme Court awarded costs on appeal to the CID and the developer but denied attorney fees to all parties. View "Doyle v. The Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District No. 1" on Justia Law

Christopher and Jennifer Atkinson purchased a lot in the Ridgeview Trails Major Subdivision in Livingston, Montana, in 2012. The City of Livingston had approved the subdivision in 2005 and 2006, and a geotechnical report identifying problematic soils was created for the subdivision developers but was not provided to the Atkinsons when they purchased the lot. The Atkinsons received a building permit from the City to construct a residence, which was substantially completed in June 2013. In 2021, the Atkinsons began to observe cracking and structural problems in their home. After later discovering the existence of the geotechnical report, they sued the City in April 2024, alleging negligence and negligent misrepresentation for the City’s failure to disclose known soil issues during the permitting process.The case was heard in the Montana Sixth Judicial District Court, Park County. By agreement, the parties proceeded directly to cross-motions for summary judgment to address threshold legal issues before discovery. The District Court granted summary judgment for the City, holding that the claims were barred by Montana’s statute of repose for construction-related claims, found in § 27-2-208, MCA. The District Court also found that the City owed no duty to the Atkinsons, that the public duty doctrine barred the claims, that the Atkinsons had disclaimed claims relating to permits and inspections, and that the geotechnical report was for the developer’s exclusive use.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that the Atkinsons’ claims were barred by the ten-year statute of repose in § 27-2-208, MCA, because their claims arose from the City’s planning and inspection activities and were filed more than ten years after substantial completion of the home. The Court also held that the statute applies to municipalities and that no statutory exception applied. View "Atkinson v. Livingston" on Justia Law

A religious organization planned to build a large temple in Heber Valley, Utah, and Wasatch County approved the project through a legislative development agreement. Several nearby property owners, concerned about adverse impacts on their health, welfare, privacy, and enjoyment of their property, filed a lawsuit against Wasatch County. They alleged that the county’s approval violated local land-use regulations and state law. The plaintiffs sought a declaration invalidating the ordinance and requested injunctive relief to halt construction.The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints intervened, and both the Church and Wasatch County moved for summary judgment. The Fourth District Court granted summary judgment fully to the Church and partially to the County, finding that the ordinance was neither preempted nor contrary to law, and that plaintiffs had not overcome the highly deferential standard of review for land use actions. The court dismissed the case, prompting an appeal from the plaintiffs. After the Church began construction, the plaintiffs moved for an injunction to stop construction during the appeal. The district court granted the injunction, reasoning that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if construction proceeded and was later found unlawful.The Supreme Court of Utah reviewed the district court’s order, focusing solely on whether the injunction should remain pending appeal. Applying Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 8, the Court found that the plaintiffs had not identified specific irreparable harm that would result from construction during the appeal. The Court concluded that inconvenience or temporary changes to the land did not constitute irreparable harm absent clear evidence of injury that could not be remedied. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Utah granted the Church’s motion and suspended the injunction pending resolution of the appeal. View "VAN DUSEN v. WASATCH COUNTY" on Justia Law