Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Rebecca Eisenberg, a director of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, was permitted to review two confidential investigation reports at the District’s facility in January 2024. These reports, prepared by outside counsel, addressed allegations of misconduct by Eisenberg and complaints she raised against staff. The District explicitly instructed Board members not to remove the reports from the premises. Eisenberg nevertheless left the facility with the reports, later admitting her actions at Board meetings. After repeated requests for their return and a formal censure by the Board, Eisenberg refused to return the reports.The District filed suit in Santa Clara County Superior Court, asserting claims including conversion and seeking prejudgment recovery of the reports. It successfully moved for a writ of possession and a turnover order, which Eisenberg temporarily stayed by posting a statutory undertaking. The District then sought a mandatory preliminary injunction compelling the return of the reports. Eisenberg opposed this, arguing that the claim and delivery law’s remedy (the writ of possession, now stayed) precluded further injunctive relief and that the District did not meet the requirements for an injunction.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the trial court’s order granting the preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that Code of Civil Procedure section 516.050 expressly permits a party to seek injunctive relief for possession of personal property, even after pursuing relief under the claim and delivery law. The court further found no abuse of discretion: the District demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on its conversion claim and showed that the harm to the District from denial of the injunction outweighed any harm to Eisenberg. The appellate court affirmed the order granting the preliminary injunction, requiring Eisenberg to return the confidential reports. View "Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. v. Eisenberg" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case are trustees who own a property in Kīhei, Maui, which they use as a vacation home for personal use. In 2021, Maui County reclassified their property as a “short-term rental” based solely on zoning, not actual use, resulting in a higher property tax rate. The plaintiffs paid the assessed taxes but did not utilize the administrative appeals process available through the Maui County Board of Review. Instead, they filed a class action in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, seeking a refund and alleging that the County’s collection of the higher taxes was unconstitutional, violated due process, and resulted in unjust enrichment.The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit granted the County’s motion to dismiss, finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court determined that under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes chapter 232 and Maui County Code chapter 3.48, the proper procedure for contesting real property tax assessments—including constitutional challenges—requires first appealing to the County Board of Review and, if necessary, then to the Tax Appeal Court. Because the plaintiffs bypassed these required steps and missed the statutory deadline to appeal, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the Tax Appeal Court has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals regarding real property tax assessments, including those raising constitutional issues, and found that the plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred due to their failure to timely pursue the established administrative remedies. As a result, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Piezko v. County of Maui" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over possession and damages related to a residential property in Malibu. In 2019, the plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action against several defendants, including the defendant, seeking possession of the property and damages. The defendant responded with an answer denying several key allegations, including the plaintiff’s ownership of the property and the claimed fair rental value. The plaintiff later obtained leave to file a first amended complaint, which reclassified the action and asserted new causes of action but relied on the same underlying facts as the original complaint. The defendant did not file a new answer to this amended complaint.The Los Angeles County Superior Court entered a default against the defendant after he failed to answer the amended complaint and subsequently entered a default judgment awarding significant damages. The defendant moved multiple times to set aside the default judgment. The court eventually denied his postjudgment motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), which allows courts to set aside void judgments. The defendant timely appealed these orders.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed whether the original answer sufficed to controvert the first amended complaint’s allegations and precluded entry of default. The appellate court held that because the defendant’s original answer denied essential factual allegations that remained central to the amended complaint—including ownership and valuation—the default judgment was improper. The court found that a defendant’s original answer stands as a response to reasserted facts in an amended complaint, and default cannot be entered on allegations previously denied. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and the trial court’s order denying the motion to set aside default, remanding with instructions to vacate the default and default judgment. View "Ammari v. Ammari" on Justia Law

A restaurant operated by PFPCO.’s Noble Pie Parlor leased space in the El Cortez Hotel in Reno, Nevada, which was owned by El Cortez Reno Holdings, LLC. After initially peaceful relations, the parties’ relationship deteriorated due to disputes over property maintenance and incidents such as a gas leak and a stolen camera. Tensions escalated when El Cortez locked Noble Pie out, resulting in litigation that ended largely in Noble Pie’s favor, with the judgment affirmed on appeal. Later, Noble Pie permanently closed its restaurant, prompting El Cortez to allege breach of the lease’s agreed-use provision and file a new complaint. Noble Pie moved to dismiss; the district court granted the motion but allowed El Cortez to amend its complaint. After further procedural exchanges, El Cortez filed an amended complaint, and Noble Pie again moved to dismiss.The Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, presided by Judge Egan K. Walker, reviewed El Cortez’s late opposition to the motion to dismiss and its request for an extension of time. El Cortez’s request, based on “professional courtesy,” was submitted just before the deadline. The district court denied the extension, finding no good cause for the delay and noting El Cortez’s pattern of tardiness in filings. The court treated El Cortez’s failure to timely oppose the motion as an admission under DCR 13(3), granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice, denied leave to further amend, and awarded attorney fees to Noble Pie as the prevailing party under the lease.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the extension, granting the motion to dismiss, refusing leave to amend, and awarding attorney fees. The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the district court did not abuse its discretion or err in any of these rulings and affirmed the judgment, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural rules in litigation. View "El Cortez Reno Holdings, LLC v. PFPCO.'s Noble Pie Parlor" on Justia Law

Timothy Hale and Sonja Ringen constructed a storage building on their commercially zoned property in Laramie without first obtaining a building permit. When the City of Laramie discovered the construction, it issued a stop work order and a cease-and-desist letter. Despite these notices, Hale and Ringen continued building and subsequently applied for a permit, which the City denied due to deficiencies in the application. After further unsuccessful permit attempts and ongoing disputes over the City’s requirements—including requests for disassembly of the structure—the City sought and obtained a permanent injunction from the District Court of Albany County, restricting use of the building until permitting was complete and compliance was achieved.The District Court of Albany County conducted a bench trial in May 2022 and granted the City’s request for a permanent injunction. The court outlined a process for inspections, identification of code violations, and corrective actions, but continued conflict between the parties hindered progress. Multiple rounds of correspondence, inspections, and motions ensued, with the City insisting on structural disassembly and Hale/Ringen providing documentation to support their position. Hale and Ringen eventually moved to vacate the injunction, arguing it was no longer equitable given their efforts and the City’s refusal to issue a permit. The district court denied their motion, citing only the parties’ lack of agreement, and provided no substantive analysis of the evidence.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming determined that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider the evidence and arguments presented before denying the motion to vacate or modify the injunction. The Supreme Court held that a court must exercise discretion and decide motions on their merits, rather than requiring agreement between adversarial parties. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case for full consideration of Hale/Ringen’s motion in light of all relevant facts and equities. View "Hale v. City of Laramie" on Justia Law

The plaintiff owned a large tract of land in Cumberland County, North Carolina. In 1992 and 2006, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) filed official corridor maps under the Map Act, which imposed restrictions on portions of the plaintiff’s property, limiting development and affecting value. In 2002 and 2010, NCDOT initiated two direct condemnation actions to acquire parts of the plaintiff’s land—some of which overlapped with the previously restricted areas—resulting in two settlements and consent judgments. After the 2010 settlement, 28.041 acres of the plaintiff’s property remained subject to Map Act restrictions until the maps were repealed in 2016.Following the repeal and a 2016 North Carolina Supreme Court decision in Kirby v. North Carolina Department of Transportation, which held that Map Act restrictions constituted a taking, the plaintiff filed an inverse condemnation action in Cumberland County Superior Court in 2018. The plaintiff sought compensation specifically for the Map Act restrictions not addressed in prior settlements. The Superior Court dismissed some claims but allowed the action to proceed for the remaining 28.041 acres. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the plaintiff’s claims regarding the Map Act restrictions were not barred and could proceed as an independent interest not covered by the earlier condemnation actions.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the Court of Appeals. It held that, under North Carolina’s eminent domain statutes, the plaintiff was required to raise claims related to the Map Act restrictions as part of the answer in NCDOT’s 2010 direct condemnation action, since those restrictions were pertinent to determining just compensation for the partial taking. Because the plaintiff failed to do so, he could not pursue a separate inverse condemnation claim for those restrictions under N.C.G.S. § 136-111. The Court’s disposition was to reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. View "Sanders v. N.C. Dep't of Transp" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a university in Nebraska instituted a policy requiring all students to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by a specified deadline, with the only exemptions allowed for medical reasons or until a vaccine received full FDA approval. Religious exemptions were not permitted. Students who failed to comply were unenrolled and barred from campus, and some had holds placed on their accounts, preventing access to transcripts. One student complied with the mandate but suffered adverse effects and was medically exempted from further doses. Another student withdrew voluntarily before the deadline.After the university enforced the mandate, several students sought injunctive relief in the District Court for Douglas County to prevent their unenrollment, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The court denied relief, finding that any contract included the Emergency Use Authorization waiver agreements and that the students breached the contract by not being vaccinated after FDA approval. An initial appeal was dismissed by the Nebraska Supreme Court for lack of a final, appealable order. The students then consolidated their actions and filed an operative complaint alleging breach of implied contract, denial of due process, conversion, negligence, and violations of the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NCPA). The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and denied leave to amend.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo and found that the students plausibly alleged claims for breach of an implied contract and conversion, based on the university’s unilateral modification of conditions mid-semester and the withholding of transcripts. The court affirmed the dismissal of the negligence and NCPA claims, finding them preempted by the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, and held that the due process claim was abandoned on appeal. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the breach of contract and conversion claims. View "Ramaekers v. Creighton University" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between two competing billboard companies after one company constructed an electronic billboard in Gulfport, Mississippi. The company that operated existing billboards nearby filed suit, claiming that the new billboard violated a city ordinance enacted as part of a settlement resolving earlier litigation involving the city and the plaintiff. The defendant, along with related entities, countered with claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and challenged the plaintiff’s standing to bring the suit. The property owner on whose land the disputed billboard was constructed also became a party to the litigation.The litigation began in the Chancery Court of Harrison County, which denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, specifically rejecting their standing argument. The defendants removed the case to federal court, which remanded it and awarded costs to the plaintiff. After the defendants’ interlocutory appeal was denied by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, the case was transferred to circuit court. There, the court again denied summary judgment, and further unsuccessful dispositive motions were filed by the defendants. Over several years, the case involved multiple motions, removal, transfer, and appeals, with no claims proceeding to trial. Eventually, after the defendants transferred their interest in the billboard to a third party who settled with the plaintiff, the plaintiff moved to dismiss the case with prejudice. The Circuit Court of Harrison County granted the motion and denied the defendants’ subsequent request for attorney’s fees and costs, finding that much of the litigation expense was due to the defendants’ own aggressive litigation strategies, and declined to impose sanctions, concluding the suit was not frivolous.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the appeal, focusing on whether the trial court erred in denying attorney’s fees and sanctions to the defendants. The court held that the decision to award attorney’s fees or impose sanctions was within the trial court’s discretion, and found no abuse of discretion in denying fees or sanctions, affirming the dismissal with prejudice. View "Busby v. The Lamar Company, LLC" on Justia Law

Russ and Debi Ropken hired a construction company to build a custom home based on an oral agreement. The contractor began work and sent invoices for services and materials, which the Ropkens paid until May 2022, after which they stopped making payments. In July 2022, the Ropkens removed the contractor from the site. The contractor then sent a demand letter for three unpaid invoices totaling $276,169, but the Ropkens refused to pay. The contractor sued to recover the unpaid amount.In the District Court of Park County, the Ropkens admitted owing at least $176,870.21. At the conclusion of a jury trial, the jury found there was a valid contract, the Ropkens had breached it, and awarded the contractor $258,587.70 in damages. The district court entered judgment for that amount and permitted the contractor to request prejudgment interest. The contractor timely filed for prejudgment interest, and the Ropkens objected. The district court found for the contractor, awarding $33,473.25 in prejudgment interest at a statutory rate, and calculated interest from the date of the demand letter. The Ropkens paid the judgment but appealed the prejudgment interest award.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed whether the district court erred in awarding prejudgment interest and whether due process was violated by granting interest without an evidentiary hearing. The court held that a district court may award prejudgment interest even when it is not the trier of fact, as prejudgment interest is a matter of law and not fact. The court found the claim was liquidated and the Ropkens had notice. The court also held that the Ropkens received adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, satisfying due process. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the award of prejudgment interest. View "Ropken v. Yj Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

A property owner participated in Georgia’s Conservation Use Value Assessment (CUVA) program, which allows for reduced property tax assessments in exchange for maintaining the land for conservation purposes under a ten-year covenant. The property was subsequently sold in part to a new owner, who failed to apply to continue the CUVA covenant by the statutory deadline. As a result, the Hall County Board of Tax Assessors determined that this failure constituted a breach of the covenant, imposed penalties for the breach, and sent tax statements reflecting the penalty to both the original and new property owners.The original owner appealed the Board’s determination to the Hall County Board of Equalization, which denied the appeal. The owner then filed a petition for review in the Superior Court of Hall County, arguing that the Board had not completed required statutory steps before imposing the penalty, that the relevant statutory provision was unconstitutionally vague, and that the wrong penalty provision had been applied. The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board on all issues.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia considered whether the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the owner’s constitutional claim challenging the statute’s validity. The Supreme Court concluded that, due to a 2022 amendment to OCGA § 9-4-7(c), any constitutional challenge to a statute—even as part of a non-declaratory judgment action—requires service of the proceeding on the Attorney General so the State may defend the statute. Because the owner had not served the Attorney General prior to the trial court’s ruling, the Supreme Court held that the lower court lacked jurisdiction over the constitutional claim. The Court vacated the portion of the trial court’s order addressing the constitutional question and remanded the case to allow proper service on the Attorney General. The Court did not address the owner’s non-constitutional arguments. View "CHESTNUT RIDGE, LLC v. HALL COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS" on Justia Law